Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

City Centres

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will encourage new investment in and revitalisation of town and city centres.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Yes, through the combination of a strong national economy, sensible planning and specific measures such as city challenge to unlock local commitment.

Mr. Evennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing problems in the towns of Crayford and Erith in my constituency and in Bexleyheath shopping centre, caused by the proliferation of new out-of-town shopping developments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we restore and revitalise our town centres so that they do not become ghost towns? We must have more investment, life and jobs in our town centres to make them vibrant once again.

Mr. Gummer: I have made it clear that I believe that the future development of stores should encourage and enhance town centres wherever possible. We have made that clear in policy planning guidance notes 6 and 13 and I shall be issuing some further directions.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to answer the questions that were put to him more than six months ago following the reversal of his discredited planning policy, which has blighted thousands of businesses in towns and city centres? What assistance does he intend to provide to those local authorities and businesses that have had to sit back helplessly during the past 15 years while the Government have slavishly supported the principle of out-of-town developments—a policy which has undermined the effectiveness of local councils and businesses in their attempts to regenerate towns and city centres? What will he do to compensate those councils and businesses for his mistakes?

Mr. Gummer: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is concerned to climb on board Conservative policy in these matters and I know that he is extremely embarrassed by the fact that he did not think of it first. But the fact is that out-of-town shopping centres have played an important role in the new kind of retailing in which Britain leads. There is a balance to be gained, on which I am determined to insist. I do not want to stop those developments that are there, but I do want

to ensure that, as far as possible in future, any developments will enhance the city centres. That is a perfectly reasonable balanced policy, but, as such, it is unlikely to attract the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to promote the sometimes novel idea these days that people should live in city centres, so that they do not turn into ghost towns at night and so that we have a mix of commercial premises, shops and residences where they should be, as well as out of town?

Mr. Gummer: The genius of towns is that they are places where people can live, work, shop and take their leisure together. One of the disadvantages that has arisen in recent years—often as a result of the municipal policy of councils that did not want mixed development—has been that people have been pushed out to the edge of towns instead of giving the life that is necessary to the centre.

Nitrogen Dioxide

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increase in recorded nitrogen dioxide emissions since 1984.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): Total United Kingdom emissions of nitrogen oxides, expressed as nitrogen dioxide equivalents, increased from 1984 to 1990 by 540,000 tonnes, and have since declined year by year. Emissions in 1992, the latest year for which validated figures are available, were 110,000 tonnes below the peak values.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Despite that, the Minister knows that air pollution is an increasing problem in towns and that bad air is triggering even more attacks in children who suffer from asthma. Why does not he just accept that money spent on an integrated transport system would not only save many people in Britain from greater discomfort, but would clean up and improve the air for all of us in our city centres?

Mr. Atkins: I agreed with the earlier part of the hon. Lady's question. I have a daughter who suffers from asthma and I know at first hand in my family the problems experienced by asthmatics, so I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Lady's point of view.
It is no use assuming that pollution is the Government's fault, however. We all create pollution in one form or another and all use vehicles in one form or another, so pollution is partly of our own creation. But the Government recognise the importance of reducing pollution, which is why we spent money on research and, in conjunction with the Department of Health, are examining ways and means of improving the situation—and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made some interesting and pertinent announcements a week or two ago that will contribute to alleviating the problem that concerns the hon. Lady.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: As vehicle emissions are a major contributor to air pollution and are linked to increases in childhood and adult asthma, will the


Minister confirm that the Government are arguing for increases in petrol duty above those already planned and for cuts in the road-building programme? Will he back the launch today of the clean air through oxygen campaign for the oxygenation of fuel to cut emissions?

Mr. Atkins: I cannot comment on matters that are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as I am that my right hon. Friend is taking the action to which he referred. As to oxygenation, I am interested—as are our expert advisers—in any schemes or products that could help to reduce pollution. However, the value of oxygenates remains unknown and some claims made for them have not been proven. There is a long way to go before the action that the hon. Gentleman suggests could be known to be helpful.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Government may not be entirely at fault for rising levels of air pollution and asthma, but Government inaction must carry a substantial part of the blame. Why is it that this country has only 34 national nitrogen dioxide monitoring stations? Why did the Government decide recently not to make monitoring a statutory duty for local authorities? Above all, why do the Government refuse to adopt a properly integrated transport strategy, which would be the long-term answer to the problem?

Mr. Atkins: At long last we have an admission from the hon. Gentleman, as opposed to an emission, that the Government are not wholly at fault. I go further, and suggest that the Government have an extremely good record on emissions. We are meeting all the deadlines that the European Union requires of us and have plans for improvements. As to monitoring stations, I take guidance from my specialist and technical advisers—as would the hon. Gentleman if he were in my position. We are advised that the monitoring devices and their location are as good as anywhere in Europe. I am entirely confident that the results that we are receiving from those devices are entirely accurate and give a fair picture of what needs to be done.

Mr. Robathan: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to know that I do not consider that the Government are blameworthy in this sphere —[Interruption]—which makes a change. Will my hon. Friend the Minister support increased research into electric vehicles, which could have a major impact on reducing inner-city pollution? Will he, together with his colleagues in the Department of Transport, further encourage cycling in cities and outside them, and consider the use—particularly in London—of the river, which is totally under-used? That could go some way to reducing congestion and improving air purity in our cities.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes some interesting points. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London are made aware of those concerns.

Local Government Finance

Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the settlement of local government finance for 1995–96.

Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the settlement of local government finance for 1995–96.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the settlement of local government finance for 1995–96

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): I discussed the finance settlement with local authority associations on 10 October.

Ms Church: When the Minister discussed those plans with local authority associations, did he give them an assurance that the report in the Local Government Chronicle on 7 October, to the effect that he did not put up a fight against Treasury plans to freeze local authority expenditure, was untrue? Can he assure the House that the Treasury plans published in the Red Book will not be cut further, leading to additional cuts in vital services and higher unemployment?

Mr. Curry: The local authority associations had obviously seen that report, and my right hon. Friend, if I am quoting him accurately, said that they should not believe everything that they read in the paper.

Mr. Khabra: Will the Secretary of State outline to the House what steps he is taking to remove the anomaly that exists in the local government revenue support grant settlement, whereby six outer London authorities have no choice but to pay their teachers the inner London weighting allowance, whereas it is calculated in the standard spending assessments that they must pay only the outer London weighting allowance? That is an anomaly. Will the Minister answer the question, please?

Mr. Curry: I understand that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) is meeting representatives about that this afternoon. But I can be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. His question touches on the earlier cost adjustment—the sums that are directed towards the south-east area to compensate for higher labour costs. I made it clear to the House last year that I was not satisfied with the way in which those sums were directed in the south-east area, and that I would therefore review the relationship between central London and outer London and the taper towards the south-east. I shall propose changes to that when we announce the rate support settlement, and I hope that they will give some satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Why is it that, in the previous SSA settlement for local government, the Secretary of State did not take into account the Prime Minister's pledge to help people who could not afford to pay VAT? Many of my constituents find that, when


they apply for a community charge rebate, the assistance that they get for VAT is taken into account. Will the Minister do something about that?

Mr. Curry: With respect, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the SSA systems. Compensation for VAT has been announced in the context of the pensions measure. As regards the SSA, we try to distribute an amount according to the needs of local authorities and their ability to deliver a standard system. The hon. Gentleman came with representatives from Coventry last year to discuss certain matters. In the present settlement those matters will, of course, have been put right from his point of view, so I hope that he will be satisfied.

Sir Peter Fry: When my hon. Friend speaks to the local authority representatives, will he make it clear not only that there should be concern over the way in which the area costs adjustment is currently calculated but that fundamental change is needed to prevent the kind of unfairness that currently exists, particularly in counties such as Northamptonshire, which has suffered considerably as a result of not being included in the adjustment?

Mr. Curry: I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned about that. I have met him and his fellow Members of Parliament from the county, and we have plans for a further meeting quite shortly on the matter. I recognise that the area cost adjustment is, of course, liked very much by those who receive it and that those who do not receive it find it difficult. It is a question of balance. I hope to get the most sensible balance that we possibly can in that area.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I inform my hon. Friend that my constituents are interested not only in how much money is provided but in how it is spent? They are therefore extremely anxious to secure the abolition of the high-spending Lancashire county council, but unfortunately the county has seen fit to spend huge sums of ratepayers' money circulating to every head teacher, every head governor and every Lancashire county council employee a wholly distorted view. We very much hope that the commission will not permit itself to be influenced by that wholly unfair action on the county council's part.

Mr. Curry: Whether or not moneys have been spent legally is a matter for the district auditor. As regards the future structure of Lancashire, until the Local Government Commission issues its recommendations I have no role to play. When it does so, I have no doubt whatever that my hon. Friend will be one of the first through the doors.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: But is it not the case that Conservative local authorities tend to get less Government grant per head but nevertheless charge the lowest council taxes on average? Is not that best exemplified by Gravesham borough council, which, in its last year of Conservative rule, had the lowest council tax in Kent, yet which, in its first year of Labour rule, already had the fourth lowest?

Mr. Curry: It is true, of course, that the grant tends to be directed to those inner-city areas with the greatest need. But I am very happy to pay tribute to Gravesham

borough council for the excellent way in which it administers the funds in north Kent. It plays a very important role in the whole of our strategy for the area.

Mr. Rooker: When considering the settlement for 1995–96, will the Minister pay attention to the country's second city? Birmingham funded the international convention centre with only its own taxpayers' money and European money, but the Conservative central council will meet there next year only if it receives a £53,000 grant and subvention. The Tory party should pay its own way before using Birmingham's facilities.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that once a local authority has received grant, it can use it for the purposes that it deems most fit for the area. Birmingham chose to devote its funds to the construction of facilities. Contractual relationships between Birmingham and anyone else are entirely a matter for those concerned.

Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware that East Sussex county council, which currently enjoys the benefits of a Lib-Lab pact in its ruling group, appears to have overspent by £1 million so far this year on its social services budget? When my hon. Friend comes to use his powers both in terms of the settlement and by way of capping, will he bear in mind the profligacy of many Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities?

Mr. Curry: As my hon. Friend knows, we issue the rate support grant in consideration of the needs of local authorities; the limits to which they are allowed to spend have no political colour. It is an absolutely objective system, the Opposition party accepts that it is objective and while I hold this job it will continue to be objective.

Mr. Straw: As objective as it has been in Westminster and Wandsworth, shall we say.
Does the Minister understand that the universal capping of council budgets is not only unjustified and undemocratic, but has failed to work in its own terms? That, by the way, is what many members of the Minister's own party are now saying.
Will the Minister confirm that six Conservative associations—including one in Croydon, in the constituency of the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford)—submitted resolutions to this month's Conservative party conference which called for capping to be scrapped? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that so great was the fear that those resolutions might be carried that not one of them was called? When will he recognise that nothing symbolises the over-centralisation of the country more than authoritarian ministerial control over services that local communities should be free to provide?

Mr. Curry: I am perfectly aware that capping is not popular with all councillors, including some Conservative councillors. I am not ashamed about that; they are quite free to express their opinions. But there are other considerations, such as what the nation can afford and the requirements of public finance. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would tell me whether he intends, in the first year of a hypothetical Labour


Government, to abolish capping immediately and allow local authorities to spend all the accumulated receipts without restraint. That would be a very important contribution to public finances.

Retail Industry

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to make the most of the planning opportunities provided by continued development of the retail industry.

Mr. Gummer: By encouraging retailers to develop forms of retailing which can, where possible, locate in places, such as town centres, where everyone can benefit from the competition and choice that they bring.

Mrs. Lait: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Boots Properties is currently finalising plans for exactly the kind of town-centre shopping development that he has recommended? Does he agree that such town-centre shopping provides access for all—both those with and those without cars—and also has benefits in terms of car emissions? Will he give some further information about the timing and content of the planning guidance that he has said that he intends to publish?

Mr. Gummer: It would be wrong for me to comment on the specific example given by my hon. Friend, because it might be the subject of a review by the Department and by me. I certainly believe, however, that encouraging larger stores to play their part in the revivification of town centres will be good for everyone. It will provide opportunities for those without access to motor cars. That will be a necessary part of any concept of sustainable development in the future.
I hope to extend the information on the current planning guidance pretty soon.

Mr. Stevenson: Does the Secretary of State accept that traditional town and city-centre markets are an important part of the retail industry? Does he recognise that, in their dash for deregulation, the Government propose to remove local-authority market franchise rights? That will cause severe damage in areas such as my constituency in Stoke-on-Trent. Will the Secretary of State instigate an urgent review on this piece of Government dogma before the damage is done to our inner cities and town centres?

Mr. Gummer: I have looked at this matter carefully because not only the hon. Gentleman but my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and others have raised the issue with me. I hope to be able to make an announcement soon.

Mr. David Nicholson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the necessary, and probably overdue, issue of planning guidance that protects our town and city centres against out-of-town developments. That is desirable. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the guidance is sensitive enough to enable councillors to object to undesirable urban developments such as the proposed removal in Taunton of the facilities offered by the County hotel and their replacement by retailing facilities?

Mr. Gummer: I shall not discuss the particular aspect raised by my hon. Friend, but he is right that we are talking about guidance. It does not apply in any

specific case. There may be good reasons for deciding not to agree to a development. Not long ago, I turned down, on appeal, a development in the centre of Ludlow. I believe that there are cases when the proposed development is unacceptable either for design or for other reasons. We must then take appropriate measures. Generally, most people in Britain would like to see a further enhancement of our city and town centres rather than development outside. They do not object to much that has been built outside because it provides services that people want and has changed the way retailing takes place. However, they do not want it to be overdone.

Mr. Pike: We welcome the Government's change to supporting our town centres and shopping areas within those centres. However, will the Secretary of State recognise that the change in retailing increasingly means that small corner shops are closing in outer areas of town? Will he realise that people who depend on those shops need public transport? It is essential that we have good public transport to our town centres and retail shopping areas. It is also essential that the needs of the disabled are protected in those new shopping areas because it is increasingly difficult for many disabled people to get round the new type of shops.

Mr. Gummer: I doubt whether it is increasingly difficult for disabled people. Many of the newer shops provide better facilities for the disabled and I am impressed by some of the changes that have taken place in some of the large retail outlets recently.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that nearly 50 per cent. of the budget of the Department of Transport is spent on public transport when it accounts for only 10 per cent. of journeys.

Homelessness

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were accepted as homeless by local authorities in England during the last 12 months; how many were living in temporary accommodation at the end of this period; and what were the equivalent figures for 1979.

Mr. Curry: In the year ending June 1994, 128,000 households were accepted as statutorily homeless by local authorities in England; in 1979, 56,000 households were so accepted. At 30 June 1994, 51,450 households were living in temporary accommodation; no comparable figure is held for 1979.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that the disgraceful increase in the number of homeless and in the numbers in temporary accommodation, which I can assure the Minister has risen fivefold since the early 1980s, reflects in part the behaviour of certain councils such as Westminster which has been deliberately keeping council properties empty and for sale while leaving homeless families in temporary accommodation? If the inquiry that begins today confirms the district auditor's preliminary finding that Lady Porter was guilty of improper, disgraceful and unlawful conduct, will the Minister be the first to condemn her?

Mr. Curry: It might reflect also the behaviour of councils such as Southwark which leave some of their social housing empty rather than allow people to come


from other boroughs to fill the empty houses even though they are in need. The hon. Gentleman needs to look a little closer to home and he will find some of the answers to his questions.
On Westminster, if there is proven to be any wrongdoing, we will condemn it as we have always said we would. That is a matter for the auditor, not for the Government and I am not involved.

Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that the private sector provides accommodation for many people who would otherwise be homeless? Will he confirm that, unlike the Labour party, the Government wish to support and encourage the development of the private sector?

Mr. Curry: That is true. The number of households living in the private sector has increased from about 1.6 million to almost 2 million, which is welcome. We clearly wish to sustain that development. It depends heavily, of course, on housing benefit. It may also depend to some extent on people who have empty property and are unable to sell it. We need to keep looking at ways in which we can ensure that the private rented sector continues to fulfil housing needs in Britain.

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister confirm that. his Department has received the preliminary results of the research it commissioned by Pat Niner at Birmingham university on the homelessness code of guidance? When does the Minister intend to publish that research, or will the Government's intended changes to homeless law be introduced in the next 12 months, regardless of the research and of public comment on it?

Mr. Curry: We have made it clear that we intend to legislate on those homelessness provisions as soon as parliamentary time permits. The hon. Gentleman might be interested in the remarks of the chairman of the Chartered Institute of Housing, Mr. Peter McGurk, at a meeting at which the press were present, where he said that he thought that the Government had got their homelessness proposals about right.

Mr. John Marshall: As the private rented market was decimated by decades of rent control and as Labour-controlled councils have more than 10,000 empty council houses in London, is not it complete hypocrisy for the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) to talk about this issue?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend has put it in much more pungent terms than even I would have been able to do.

European Environment Commissioner

Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the European Environment Commissioner; and what was discussed at the meeting.

Mr. Gummer: I last met the Commissioner on 4 and 5 October at the Environment Council. We discussed a wide range of environmental issues.

Mr. Davidson: The Government still have not used the powers given to them under the transfrontier shipment of waste regulations to ban shipments of toxic waste. When do they intend to use those powers?

Mr. Gummer: The Government's policy in these matters is under discussion with our colleagues in the

European Union. The hon. Gentleman will realise that we are trying to ensure that dangerous waste of various types is properly dealt with. In a transitional period, it is necessary to deal with waste rather differently if facilities are not present in some European Union countries. We hope to do that in the future. I am trying to find the best way of dealing with the problems that we have now. Of course, in the longer run we will have an entirely different system.

Mr. Heald: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Environment Commissioner, will he explain to him the detail of the integrated pollution control system that we will have in this country following my right hon. Friend's announcement last week? Will he press for a European directive to drag the standards of our partners in Europe up to our extremely high standards?

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that a number of our colleagues in the European Union accept that what we are doing in integrated pollution control leads the field. I hope that the European Union system will be based on the British system. We are negotiating that at the moment. Some countries, notably Germany, have their reservations, but I believe that in the end what is obviously the best system will win out.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware of the vote in the European Parliament on 30 September opposing South Africa's proposal to resume trade in elephant meat and skin? The Commissioner apparently is not taking that very seriously. Will the Secretary of State impose upon him the need to take it seriously? Will he also give us the views of the British Government on the South African proposal to downlist the elephant from appendix 1 to appendix 2 of CITES?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman and I have been on the same side on whales and I think that the same will be true of elephants. [Interruption.] Uncharacteristically for both of us, we are in favour of large animals. We are trying to use our best endeavours, not just negatively to oppose the propositions that have been put forward, but to find ways in which the undoubted expertise in southern Africa can be used to help other parts of Africa, where the position of elephants is much worse. A real problem exists. There are too many elephants in some parts of southern Africa and far too few in others. I want to try to reap the benefit of what is happening in the south.

Mr. Skinner: Come on Sabu.

Mr. Gummer: I would say to those who speak from a sedentary position that many people take this matter extremely seriously, although perhaps not in Bolsover.

Mr. Dafis: Did the Commissioner and the Secretary of State discuss the Government's proposals for an environmental protection agency, and did the Commissioner express his disappointment at the fact that the Government's draft Bill, which some of us have heard about but few of us have seen, omits any reference to the precautionary principle or to sustainable development? I express my sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, who has had to face the opposition of the Secretary of State


for Wales, but I assure him that, in this, the Secretary of State for Wales does not speak for the people of Wales, any more than he does in relation to anything else.

Mr. Gummer: The Secretary of State for Wales has been extremely supportive on these matters. I am concerned to have an environmental agency that will fully meet the promises that we have made internationally on sustainable development. Responsibilities should be based on sustainability and growth— the two must be held together, which is precisely what I am seeking to do. I intend that the draft Bill should be precisely that. I cannot promise to take on board all the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman may wish to make, but I will look at them carefully.

Water Industry

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the chairmen of the privatised water companies about the future of the water industry.

Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend and I have discussions with water company chairmen from time to time on matters of current and future interest to the water industry.

Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware that, more than a year after Ofwat issued guidelines on disconnections, only four companies have complied with them? Disconnections in England and Wales are now twice as high as before privatisation. Is not this another example of woefully inadequate regulation, which results in high disconnections, high prices and high salaries?

Mr. Atkins: Disconnections have decreased by 33 per cent. on last year, so the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. I know that the Labour party is committed to doing away with disconnections, but it should realise that it is out of touch with people. In the area represented by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and myself, North West Water conducted a poll of its customers and found that an overwhelming majority wanted to retain the right to disconnect, bearing in mind that the process, which goes up to a court order, is exhaustive and necessary to protect proper customers from bad payers.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: When my hon. Friend next meets his counterparts in the European Council, will he urge them to adopt European water directives that are based on proper scientific evidence? Our constituents are very concerned about the rate of increase in their water bills, which can be inflated unnecessarily by directives being based on unscientific evidence.

Mr. Atkins: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend. There is a suggestion in Europe that water should be of a pristine quality, which seems to be going much too far. The cost of ensuring such water quality would lead to extremely expensive bills in some areas and my right hon. Friend and I are ensuring that our colleagues in the European Union understand that point.

Mr. Burden: The Minister spoke of the reduction in the number of disconnections. Does he share my concern about the increase in the number of what are called self-disconnections as a result of the introduction of

prepayment water meters by water companies? Does he agree that the legality of these devices is questionable and that the system needs rapidly to be reviewed?

Mr. Atkins: I have said many times from the Dispatch Box that it is my view, that of the regulator and, I think, that of many people across the party divide, although I recognise some dissension, that metering is one of the answers, if not the answer, to the payment of water bills in the future. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is only one option— there are others. I take the point that he made about prepayment, but the overriding concern—expressed synthetically by the Opposition — is about disconnections. I remind the House, however, that the disconnection facility was written into a Bill in 1945 that was promulgated by a Labour Government.

Mr. Nicholls: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of South West Water, will he remind him that water charges were eventually pegged in the south-west only because of the efforts of Conservative Members of Parliament and because of the actions of Ministers in the Department of the Environment? Will he further tell the chairman that he would do better to spend his time welcoming that development instead of scuttling off to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to see whether, even now, he can impose greater price rises on the south-west than is justified?

Mr. Atkins: I spent some time in the west country during the recess and wherever I went I was astonished at the reaction of many people to the immense efforts of Conservative Members of Parliament, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), to make the case most strongly for the amelioration of water bills, commensurate with the remedial work necessary to improve quality. As ever, my hon. Friend is quite right.

River Pollution

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the National Rivers Authority about emissions from abandoned mine workings; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): My Department maintains regular contact with the National Rivers Authority about this and other matters. The NRA report published in March on this matter of concern was taken into account in our consideration of the legal framework for abandoned mines.

Mr. Mullin: Is not it a plain fact that there is absolutely nothing to stop British Coal or its successors turning off the pumps and walking away and that, if that happens, the River Wear, one of the most beautiful waterways in Britain, and many others will be devastated? Who will pay the costs of maintaining pumping after British Coal has disappeared? What assurance can the Minister give that pumping will be maintained for as long as is necessary?

Sir Paul Beresford: I am rather disappointed that the hon. Gentleman clearly has not done quite as much homework as his earlier requests, comments and correspondence implied. The NRA is the enforcing authority and the Coal Authority will be responsible for


the safety and environmental aspects of abandoned mines, including subsidence and effects on the water environment, except where the responsibility rests with the private sector. They have a specific budget for this purpose, and the Coal Authority will maintain all necessary pumping operations to prevent such water pollution; in fact, the appropriate Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry made that clear in another place during the debate on the Coal Industry Act 1994.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the NRA is doing a remarkably good job clearing up such pollution? Is not one of the problems the fact that some of the old mine workings predate even the nationalised coal industry and that we have a major problem in this respect?

Sir Paul Beresford: That certainly is correct and it is the reason for the approach that we are taking with the NRA and the Coal Authority.

Mr. George Howarth: I welcome the Minister to his new post, but I must tell him that, in assuming his new responsibilities, he should be aware that everyone, including local authorities in mining areas, the NRA and British Coal, agrees that the present situation is wholly unsatisfactory. Will he accept that it was irresponsible of the Government to pass the Coal Industry Act 1994 without resolving once and for all the grey areas that bedevil the subject and thus ensuring that we all knew how the problems were to be dealt with? Does he realise that if, during the passage of an environmental protection agency Bill, he can come up with a formula for resolving the problems, everyone in the coal areas will be grateful and he will receive the Opposition's co-operation?

Sir Paul Beresford: Interestingly, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I welcome his forward-looking approach. We all accept that this is a difficult matter, but steps are being made in the right direction. I remind him that the consultation document "Paying for our Past", which is now completed, will allow us to continue our review.

Isle Of Wight

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions he has made on the combined standard spending assessments for the new unitary authority on the Isle of Wight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): We shall announce our proposals for standard spending assessments for 1995–96 shortly after the Budget.

Mr. Field: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion and thank him on behalf of the Select Committee on the Environment for all his hard work and enthusiasm when he was its Chairman? I understand that he will be replying to my Adjournment debate on SSAs on Monday evening, but, in the meantime, will he confirm to my constituents that he is well aware of my concerns about the level of the SSA for the Isle of Wight's new unitary authority and especially of the problems caused by severance by sea?

Mr. Jones: One of my vivid memories of the Select Committee on the Environment is the fact that my hon.

Friend took every opportunity to advance the cause of his constituents, in connection not only with standard spending assessments but with everything else. In expressing my gratitude for his kind remarks, I confirm that we shall discuss those issues next Monday. I look forward to it.

Local Government Commission

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to present proposals arising out of recommendations of the Local Government Commission for England; and when the proposals for Warwickshire will be reached.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Timing of any orders will depend, first, on when the Local Government Commission makes its recommendations for each county; and then on other factors such as the wider parliamentary timetable. The commission is due to submit its final report for Warwickshire in December.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that a substantial number of my constituents and other Warwickshire residents wish to retain the local government status quo and oppose the idea of a unitary solution being imposed on Warwickshire? Is he further aware that there is much cross-party support for the retention of the status quo? Will he therefore join me in calling for a free vote on the matter when it is discussed in the House of Commons?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend's last question is not, of course, a matter for me. But on his more general point, we have not yet had the final proposal, and he will have every opportunity to try to persuade the commission. After we receive the final proposal, no doubt he and other Members representing Warwickshire will take every opportunity to alert my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to their views.

Mr. Betts: Is the Minister aware that there is much support among the Opposition for progress towards unitary authorities, despite our reservations about the way in which the commission has operated? However, does he accept that several matters concern us, on which we shall need assurances from him? One of those matters involves potential safeguards for the employees involved. Is the Minister aware that when the metropolitan counties were abolished a generally acceptable scheme was introduced to allow for the transfer of employees and to protect them? Will he give an assurance that he will examine that scheme and consider introducing it for the non-metropolitan areas?

Mr. Jones: Naturally, the future of the employees concerned is a matter of anxiety for them. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have consulted on the various measures necessary to protect their interests. No decisions have been made as yet, and I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's comments in mind.

Mr. Alison: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, although the Boundaries Commission expressed no very strong views on how the future boundaries of York city might be drawn, people who live in the villages round York and within the existing city boundaries have extremely strong views? The overwhelming majority believe that any future York city boundaries should be


tightly drawn and should not extend into the Greater York planning area. If that is news to my hon. Friend, I hope that he will digest it with an open mind, and nudge the Secretary of State so that he may digest it likewise.

Mr. Jones: Clearly, Warwickshire's boundaries extend rather further than I had thought, but I will certainly bear my right hon. Friend's comments in mind. As he knows, we have not yet come to a final decision on the county of North Yorkshire.

Mr. Henderson: May I add to the Opposition's welcome to the Minister in his new appointment? Further to the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), does he accept that the matter is not simply a case of dealing with the staff issue as such, but that the staff's anxiety is beginning, wrongly, to influence the whole review? Instead of its being judged on whether we have the right structure, organisational effectiveness or community democracy, in many areas the review is judged according to its impact on the staff. Would not it be right to withdraw that issue and give the assurances that my hon. Friend sought, and then to get on and deal with the review on its merits?

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome. As he knows, I was present at a meeting where he and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) raised precisely those issues, and Ministers are still considering them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an early announcement would be helpful in reassuring the staff, and we are moving towards that.

Petrol

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the current level of consumption of unleaded petrol in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the environmental effects of the reduced use of leaded petrol.

Mr. Gummer: Unleaded petrol currently accounts for over 58 per cent. of the market. Since the fuel was first introduced, emissions of lead from road vehicles have been cut by almost 50 per cent. and, at the same time, average airborne lead concentrations recorded in urban, rural and kerbside monitoring sites have fallen by approximately 74 per cent.

Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great success of the Government's policy over the past nine years can be measured by the dramatic fall in airborne lead concentrations, which, as he just said, amounts to some 74 per cent? Does he also agree that, as a result of the transfer from leaded petrol to lead-free petrol, there has been an increase in other emissions, especially those such as benzene, which contain carcinogens? On that basis, does he agree that there is still a need to encourage conversion to catalytic converters in more than the existing 15 per cent. of the vehicle fleet in the country to reduce the threat of benzene, which has simply replaced the existing threat of leaded petrol?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the success of the policy and the way in which there is much less lead in the atmosphere. Perhaps he is

overstating the matter to say that the problems with benzene are as great or parallel. In fact, there is not much evidence to show that unleaded petrol contributes much to an increase in the amount of benzene. However, he is also right to point to the need for catalytic converters and for the use of, particularly, hot catalytic converters, which work from the first starting of the motor.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister will be aware that there is growing concern about benzene and that it is used largely in the sale of super unleaded, 98 octane petrol, where the replacement of the lead content, the octane rating, has been boosted by the addition of benzene. Surely that area, and the whole policy, need to be considered because of the grave health concerns.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right that we should always look at the concerns. I do not think that we should overdo it. The level permitted by the European Community directive is a maximum of 5 per cent. The typical UK content is lower; about 2 per cent. So, already, we are well below the limits which are placed on us. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should keep a very close watch on this and we are doing so. If there is any cause for concern, and I believe that there are ways in which we could meet that concern, I will certainly act.

Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the amount of not only lead emissions but other pollutants is falling and will he update the House on the controversy over whether unleaded petrol or diesel-powered cars are better for the environment?

Mr. Gummer: There is a great deal of improvement in many areas, but we must constantly look at ways in which we can do better. I am not in any sense complacent. The problem with diesel really depends on the nature of the journey. When diesel cars are used largely for longer journeys, there is a real environmental advantage. If they are used for stopping and starting in towns, the balance goes the other way. As is so often true about environmental decisions, they are not as clear cut as some would have us think. Our duty is to try to get the best answer and the best balance that is possible. I believe that the Government have a good record, not only in absolute terms, but in comparison with our continental colleagues.

Local Government Review

Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the local authority associations to discuss the progress of the local government review.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My right hon. Friend met the chairmen of the local authority associations only yesterday. He expects to meet them again on Monday 12 December.

Mr. Hall: Notwithstanding the discussion that has already taken place in the local government review, may I urge the Minister, when he next meets the local


government commission, to tell it that the Government are still committed to the concept of unitary local government and to explain the reasons why that concept is still right: it strengthens local democracy, it removes a two-tier system that is quite confusing and it allows councils to be responsive to the needs of the communitiesthat they represent. It is right for towns such as Warrington, Macclesfield and Halton to gain unitary status in the review.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman puts a very persuasive case for unitary authorities, which are right for some if not many areas. But we are not committed to a particular pattern of local government and there will be areas in which public opinion and the recommendations of the commission are incompatible.

Mr. Matthew Banks: When my hon. Friend next meets local authority association leaders, will he restate the commitment given to me by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that when the commission has finished its work on the shire counties, it will have an opportunity to consider the metropolitan areas, such as my constituency, where a strong desire for change has been expressed?

Mr. Jones: I am happy to repeat that reassurance.

Mr. Skinner: Is not it about time that this local government review was scrapped? It has already cost the taxpayer more than £1 billion and it will mean the sacking of more than 100,000 people who are engaged in local government work. For the life of me, I cannot understand why some of the people on our side can go down the road of unitary authorities, which will result in more people being added to the dole queues and more quangos as opposed to democratically elected councils. Is not it fair to say that, although 300 towns and cities in this country are represented here, more Members of Parliament come from areas that have a rural character, where villages are miles apart and where a two-tier system is absolutely necessary? The best thing the Government can do is leave well alone and let the status quo remain.

Mr. Jones: It is part of life's rich pattern that there should be different views on local government and its future. I note that that pattern is more complicated on the Opposition Benches than Conservative Members perhaps imagined.

Home Ownership

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the level of home ownership in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: In the period March 1979 to December 1993, the level of owner-occupation has increased from 56 per cent. of all tenures to 67 per cent. in England, from 35 to 55 per cent. in Scotland, from 59 to 72 per cent. in Wales and from 51 to 68 per cent. in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend accept that those figures reflect a deep commitment on the part of the British people to home ownership which the Government have done so much to promote over the years? Did my hon. Friend see a recent survey that showed that, despite the recession, it was the aspiration of most young people

to own their own homes? Will he therefore endorse and expand those initiatives that the Government have put in place to make that aspiration possible?

Mr. Jones: I can certainly confirm that the survey to which my hon. Friend referred is one of a series of surveys that show that that is the preferred aspiration. However, it is not the right answer for everyone. We have taken several initiatives to encourage home ownership. If my hon. Friend has any other suggestions as to how home ownership might be made more possible, I shall be happy to consider them sympathetically.

Mr. Straw: On one of these so-called initiatives to encourage home ownership—the much-trumpeted rents-to-mortgages scheme—will the Minister confirm that in the first six months of the scheme, from September 1993 to March 1994, there were just two completed applications and that that pathetic response was achieved despite the spending of more than £400,000 of the public's money on publicity and propaganda? That is £200,000 per application. Will the Minister therefore confirm that, even by this Government's appalling standards, that scheme has turned into one of the most expensive fiascos on record? Had local councillors been responsible for waste and profligacy on that scale, they would by now have been surcharged and disqualified from office. Should not the same happen to the Ministers responsible?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that the purpose of an information campaign is to inform and that it is very early, in terms of the development of the scheme, to judge the numbers. It takes a long time to go through the legal processes. If we are to judge by the experience in Scotland, the numbers will grow in the weeks and months to come. The hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that any scheme to extend home ownership is something that he is unhappy about. That is rather typical of the Labour party's attitude generally.

Mr. Duncan Smith: While congratulating my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends on the great success in getting more people into home ownership, and while urging them to continue to do that, is not there a parallel need to do more to release the private rented sector? If we wish to see a mobile population which is able to take jobs at one end of the country or the other, we must also ensure that people are able to find homes in those areas.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is quite right. We are committed to choice and diversity, and that includes the private rented sector—directly, through encouraging lettings in that sector, and indirectly, through encouraging the participation of housing associations, to ensure that the number of private lettings increases.

Waste Disposal

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts concerning the control of waste disposal.

Mr. Gummer: I have regular contact with my EU counterparts. The most recent discussions I have had with


them on issues relating to waste disposal were at the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg on 4 October.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Referring to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), does the Minister appreciate that there is a good deal of concern in south Wales about waste disposal, and that the situation has been further aggravated by an application from the American company Browning Ferris to install a plant at Newport? The firm has a rather

infamous record, so will the Minister consult the Secretary of State for Wales with a view to getting the application rejected? Does he agree that it is wrong to make south Wales the dustbin of Europe?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will look at any application properly and without prejudice. In these environmental matters, however, there is a need to clean up the waste that has already been created. We must play a proper part in that if we are to avoid leaving a dustbin that is not cleaned up. The hon. Gentleman owes it to his constituents to explain that fact to them.

Points of Order

Mr. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that this morning the Home Secretary joined the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Education, the Paymaster General for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Under-Secretary of State to launch a Green Paper on drugs? I can appreciate the embarrassment that this has caused the Home Secretary, because the document appears to accept the need for a comprehensive strategy to tackle drugs and drug-related crime—a strategy which he rejected during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill.
Would it not be appropriate for a statement on such an important issue to be made in this Chamber, so that we can test the document and question whether there has been a genuine change of heart by the Government? Is this not a discourtesy to the House, and a further example of the sort of behaviour by Ministers that you have deprecated in the past?

Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the same point of order? [Hon. Members: "No."] As the House knows, I am always keen for any important statements of policy made by the Government to be made to this House first. I have seen the document, which is of a consultative nature, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands. It is, of course, up to the Minister concerned to decide for himself whether he wishes to make a statement to the House or to use some other method.
I do, however, understand hon. Members' keenness to question question Ministers on this subject. I hope that it will not be too long before the issue comes before the House in such a form that we can all consider it and hear answers to some of the questions that hon. Members are seeking to ask.

Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the Home Secretary announced an additional £2 billion expenditure on anti-crime closed circuit television schemes for England and Wales. Today, I repeatedly contacted the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland asking whether he intended to make an equivalent statement for Scotland—only to be told that no one there knows what the position is.
Have you, Madam Speaker, been approached by the Secretary of State for Scotland to be told that he intends to make such a statement to the House about Scotland? If not, is it within the rules of this unitary Parliament that Ministers should be allowed to announce anti-crime schemes, paid for by taxpayers' money, for one part of the United Kingdom but not for another?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by any Minister that he seeks to make a statement, but my recollection is that Thursday follows Wednesday, and that Thursday is the day when the Leader of the House

announces the business. The hon. Gentleman may be lucky then, although I do not promise that he will catch my eye.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights protects the right of this House to regulate its own proceedings, including the conduct of its members. There are all sorts of historical reasons for that, and no one is likely to dispute the fact that we, not the courts, should do this. It is also most important for the reputation of Parliament that, in regulating our own procedures and the conduct of Members, everything should be seen to be above board, and that there should be as little secrecy as possible.
The point I want to raise with you, Madam Speaker, is as follows: if a Committee has been duly appointed by the House, as it has been, to look into the conduct of two hon. Members, are we in a position to tell the Committee that we are dissatisfied with its sitting in private, and that we believe that it should sit in public for most of the hearings?
Obviously, when it comes to discuss its conclusions, it must do so in private—no one disputes that—but I for one, and many of my hon. Friends, are deeply disappointed that the Committee of Privileges has decided to sit only in private. Are we therefore in a position to tell that Committee that we believe that most of its proceedings should be public?

Madam Speaker: There has been no official report yet to the House; what I have seen has been from the media. As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, all our Committees, including the Privileges Committee, regulate their own affairs. They must be left to resolve the matter. The hon. Gentleman must not look to me as a court of appeal. We have established very important working Committees in the House, and they must be left to conduct their own affairs in carrying out the task with which they have been entrusted by the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to written question 222 on today's Order Paper? The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) asked the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about Stratford grant-maintained school. That school is in my constituency, and there is a lot of controversy surrounding it. Would it not be courteous for the reply to the question to be given to the constituency Member concerned, rather than his having to wait until it is printed in the Official Report? It is matter of courtesy, upon which you could advise Ministers.

Madam Speaker: I often have to remind Ministers and Back Benchers that there should be a high degree of courtesy in the way in which we deal with each other in the House. I have always thought that, if an hon. Member tables a question that relates to another Member's constituency, that Member should be informed. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman has said has been heard by the Minister, and perhaps he will be sent the typescript answer to the question. We now must move on to the ten-minute Bill.

Maximum Wage

Mr. Denis MacShane: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to fix the emoluments of chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers of private limited companies and public bodies so that their combined annual earnings do not exceed twenty times the average take-home pay of their non-managerial employees save if the said employees agree through a ballot of their non-managerial employees or through their union to permit salaries of their chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers to exceed a 20:1 ratio.
Before explaining why I think the Bill is worthy of serious consideration, let me clear the ground of three misconceptions that have arisen so far in public discussion of it.
First, it is not aimed at entrepreneurs, the geniuses who invent a new product or service and create companies that make them millionaires. I admire Richard Branson and Anita Roddick. Ms Roddick pays herself £138,000 a year, so she would not be affected by my Bill. I welcome the tall poppies in our business field, and wish that there were many more of them.
Secondly, it is not directly aimed at the scandalous pay-offs to company directors, privatised utility pay-offs, Ministers serving on boards of companies or, indeed, the corruption that The Sunday Times exposed in 10 Downing street in the 1980s.
Finally, my Bill does not proposes a compulsory wage set at any given upper limit. I see a glint in your eye, Madam Speaker, as the boss of all Members of Parliament, at the thought of earning 20 times our meagre salary.
My Bill does not propose to set cash limits, as the Chancellor does with his public pay policy; it represents an effort to a start a national debate about how we pay ourselves as a nation for the work we do and the wealth we create.
The pay that our top executives have been awarding themselves has lost all touch with rationality and the market.
I shall take as an example my constituency of Rotherham. The starting salary for a cashier at Barclays bank there is £7,000 a year; the chief executive of Barclays earns 100 times that amount.
At the Rank Hovis plant in Rotherham, the base rate for an operative is £164 a week. Greg Hutchings, the CEO of Tomkins, which owns Rank Hovis, earns £1.2 million a year–145 times that amount.
The pay of the chief executive of British Steel is 33 times the pay of a Rotherham steel worker.
Some people may say that, if we do not pay those rates, our top managers will disappear to work abroad; but nowhere in Europe do similar pay ratios exist. The head of Thyssen, Germany's biggest steel firm and a much bigger company than British Steel, earns only 16 times the pay of a German steel worker—half the United Kingdom ratio.
Other people will say that those large salaries are justified because many people are employed and big sales are generated. Yet the chief executive of Volkswagen, Europe's biggest car company, which employs 250,000 workers and makes sales of $80 billion a year, is paid 25 per cent. less than the pay last year of the chief executive

of British Aerospace, a company with one third the number of employees and one third the magnitude of sales.
If we examine the new growth areas of the dynamic Asian economies, the comparison is even more grotesque. There are eight top managers in Japan with salaries of more than £650,000 a year, compared with the 90 that I have identified in the UK. The earnings ratio between a top executive and an engineering worker in Japan is between eight and 12 to one—compare that with GEC, where Lord Weinstock earns more than 33 times the average male earnings in industry.
That sense of teamwork, that lack of a big gap between top and average pay, is perhaps the reason why Japanese companies have been so much more successful than ours in recent years.
The noble Lord Hanson was quoted recently as saying: 
The labourer is worthy of his hire: but no more than that.
I agree with him, because that corporate greed reflects the last great closed shop in the British economic system—the company boardroom. There, men—it nearly always is men—executive and non-executive directors, meet in private, pushing their snouts deeper and ever deeper into the trough: this Government of sleaze with their boardrooms of greed.
In addition to the low-paid in my constituency, two categories of people are being diddled by that deliberate widening of the wealth gap. The first group consists of shareholders. It may be odd for a Labour Member to defend shareholders, but they have their right to a place in the sun. According to a survey carried out by CM Financial Analysis, nearly one third of top UK companies have given their directors pay rises that outstrip the rate of return to shareholders in the past three years.
The second group that is being diddled consists of middle managers, skilled workers and directors of small and medium-sized companies, who are significantly underpaid in comparison to their European counterparts as a price of the overpayment of top bosses.
What is needed, and what in part my Bill proposes, is to empower shareholders and all employees, so that they have a genuine say in the firm. If trade union reform was the issue of the 1970s, company boardroom reform is the issue of the 1990s. We need to return companies to their shareholders and their employees if we are to reverse the economic decline of the past 15 years.
With the accession—as many Members will know—of the new member states of the European Union, Britain has sunk to 11th place in the per capita GDP rankings in Europe. We have the widest wealth gap of any European or dynamic Asian economy. My proposal is based not on the politics of envy, but on the comparative economics of efficiency. Company executives have conflated salaries, performance pay and stock options in a way that disconnects them from their workers and shareholders.
An English writer, a Member of the House but not a Labour Member, wrote 130 years ago of our country being divided
into two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings as if they were dwellers in different zones or inhabitants of different planets.
Once again, we live in a divided nation. The vast majority of members of the Cabinet represent constituencies within commuting distance of London—an


M25 Administration who know nothing of, and have no sympathy for, the north and other regions. The greed of some top executives has transferred them to another planet.
My Bill is a modest attempt to bring those people back to earth, to return companies to their employees and their shareholders. But it has a deeper purpose. It is an attempt to reduce the wealth and pay gap, which has grown alarmingly wide. It is an effort to help make again one nation in which all may play a part, and all may have a share.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Denis MacShane, Mr. Ken Purchase, Ms Margaret Hodge, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mr. Nick Ainger, Ms Angela Eagle, Ms Diane Abbott, Ms Dawn Primarolo and Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

MAXIMUM WAGE

Mr. Denis MacShane accordingly presented a Bill to fix the emoluments of chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers of private limited companies and public bodies so that their combined annual earnings do not exceed twenty times the average take-home pay of their non-managerial employees save if the said employees agree through a ballot of their non-managerial employees or through their union to permit salaries of their chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers to exceed a 20:1 ratio: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

Mr. Michael Shersby: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) referred in his speech introducing his Maximum Wage Bill to "this Government of sleaze". Similar comments were made during the previous remarks of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). Is it in order for Members of Parliament constantly to use that expression? To talk of a "Government of sleaze" is not only bad for the House of Commons, but I question whether it is in accordance with parliamentary convention and the best principles of the House.

Madam Speaker: It is in order to criticise Governments in that general way, but it is certainly not in order to criticise individual Members. However, I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with me. I remind the House of the wise words of "Erskine May":
Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.
We might all remember that at all times, however high our tempers might rise on occasions.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

SECURE TRAINING ORDERS

Lords amendment: No 1, in page 2, line 16, at beginning insert

("Subject to subsection (2A) below")

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments 2 to 5, 7, 8, 10 to 18, 21, 188 and 189; and Government motions to disagree.

Mr. Howard: Part I of the Bill provides for, among other things, a new custodial sentence for persistent young offenders—the secure training order. The order may last for between six months and two years, the first half of which would be spent in a secure training centre and the second half of which would be spent under supervision in the community.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have made it clear that the new secure training centres will be different from anything tried before. They will be centres housing a specific category of persistent offender, and the regime will be tailor-made for them so as to provide the right kind of training and care within a secure environment.
Lords amendment No. 2 and its consequential amendments would allow the courts, when making a secure training order, to choose between local authority secure accommodation and a secure training centre for the custodial part of the order.
Lords amendment No. 4 and its consequential amendments would allow the local authority, when detaining a juvenile subject to a secure training order, to apply to the court for the remaining period of detention to be replaced by a period in other non-secure local authority accommodation, or a period of supervision or a period of detention in a secure training centre.
Amendment No. 4 would also allow the director of a secure training centre to apply to the court for the remaining period of detention to be spent in local authority secure accommodation or other accommodation, or for a period of supervision.
The proposals for the new centres were carefully designed to address the problem of persistent young offenders. The amendments would undermine our ability to respond specifically to that serious problem and would make the operation of the new provisions haphazard, inefficient and much less effective.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: I intervene because it is proposed to locate one of the new centres in my constituency. How long would it take to implement the Home Secretary's proposals, and how long to implement those in the amendments?

Mr. Howard: I am astonished that the hon. Lady, coming as she does from north-east England, should raise that point, but I will deal with it precisely and expressly.


The amendments are based on the assumption that local authority secure accommodation would be used instead of secure training centres. I remind the hon. Lady of the attitude of Labour local authorities in her part of the country. At a meeting with directors of social services in the north-east on 19 February 1993, it was agreed that firm proposals to provide the additional 12 secure places assessed as being required would be brought forward by the end of April 1993.
By the end of July 1994–15 months later—no commitment had been forthcoming from those Labour-controlled authorities. At that point, the Department of Health had to make the decision to transfer the resources elsewhere. I trust that the hon. Lady regrets getting to her feet to ask that question.

Ms Armstrong: I am seeking a specific response. When would the Home Secretary's proposals be implemented, and when would it be possible to implement the amended proposals?

Mr. Howard: It is obvious from my remarks that I can give no indication when local authority secure accommodation would be available, because Labour-controlled local authorities, including those in north-east England, have not presented proposals, despite giving firm undertakings to do so. That is a complete answer to the hon. Lady's question.
In accepting the amendments, much was made in the other place of the alleged flexibility that they would bring to the secure training order. Although that argument has superficial attractions, it does not stand any scrutiny. Secure training centres, in their design and their regime, will be tailored to a specific type of offender of a relatively narrow age range. Only in such a dedicated institution will it be possible to provide the specialised regime needed to tackle the behaviour of that group and the range of educational and training programmes that will meet their individual needs.
In contrast, local authority secure accommodation cannot provide that focused regime. That accommodation caters for a variety of difficult and disturbed juveniles in a wide age range. Some are serious offenders, others are on remand, and many are not offenders at all. With such a group to cater for, local authority units cannot provide the concentrated, specialised regime that is the aim behind secure training centres.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, for any 12 to 14-year-old to be made subject to a secure training order, it is almost certain that he would already have been the subject of a supervision order? In fact, that is a requirement of the legislation. That would have meant that he would have been in local authority secure accommodation. That would still be available to the court, even with the secure training order—so why do we need this provision?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right when he says that the Bill requires, as a condition of eligibility for the secure training order, that someone should have been subject to a supervision order—and, indeed, had failed to comply with its requirements. So the logic of the situation is that attempts would have been made to improve the

behaviour of offenders in that category, without obliging them to be detained in secure accommodation, but that those attempts would have failed.

Mr. John Sykes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that householders in Scarborough are fed up with the activities taking place at the Stepney road children's home, which range from mindless vandalism and theft to arson? Is he further aware that the county council social services department has shown itself utterly incapable of controlling that establishment? Quite apart from the fact that that establishment should be closed down now, does not that case show the importance of my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the particular example he cites, because I do not have any detailed knowledge of it, but the general point made by him shows that, once again, he is the authentic voice of North Yorkshire. He speaks for his constituents and represents their views, in marked contrast, on these matters particularly, to those who contribute to the debates from the Opposition benches.

Dame Jill Knight: May I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) that that area of North Yorkshire, vital though it is, is not the only area in Britain that is gravely concerned about the misdemeanours of young people who are not properly controlled in local authority homes? I have one such home in my constituency, about which I have battled for at least two years, and all the residents have a long list of problems.
In the latest incident, a young girl was let out at half past two in the morning; she was involved in a car accident and lost a leg. But no child of that age should be able to roam around outside a home at that hour while in the care of the local authority.

Mr. Howard: I have great sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend. Indeed, there are many examples in Birmingham of the large number of offences that have been committed by a very small group of persistent young offenders, for whom the sentence is particularly designed.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. John Gunnell: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make some progress.

Mr. Gunnell: Should not the Home Secretary make it absolutely clear that there is a distinction between the local authority homes, which have just been mentioned, and local authority secure accommodation? Will he acknowledge that Leeds has secure accommodation for 27 children, and that there are plans for its expansion, as he knows? Does he agree that no person has ever got out of that home? Indeed, the Minister of State commented in Committee on the very good standards there. Will he not draw a distinction between children's homes and secure accommodation?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said a few moments ago, he would have heard me explain in some considerable detail why local authority


secure accommodation is not appropriate for the group of persistent young offenders for whom the secure training order is particularly designed.
The secure training order will be a sentence of the court. It is Parliament's responsibility to ensure that the effect of any sentence is consistent for all cases. If the amendments are accepted, the secure training order could be served in a wide range of institutions, with varying regimes. Many of the local authority secure units are very small, with places for as few as eight or 12 young people. Persistent offenders will simply not get the training they need if they are dotted around the country in twos and threes in such units.
In contrast, if all secure training orders are served in secure training centres, the courts will have confidence in the regime involved, as it will be underpinned by statutory rules and set out in the contracts with the individual operators.

Mr. Michael Stephen: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point. It is a question not only of locking youngsters away, but of giving them proper education while they are there. Is he confident that, if the Lords amendment were allowed to stand, the children would receive adequate education tailored to their particular needs?

Mr. Howard: Not only am I not confident that that would happen were the amendments to remain in place, but one of my principal points of opposition to them is that it would be almost impossible to provide the high calibre regime of education and training for those young offenders that it is our intention to provide in secure training centres.
An additional difficulty with the amendments is that they provide the courts with no guidance on which cases should go to secure training centres and which to local authority accommodation. It would be impossible to predict how the courts would use the power to choose between secure training centres and local authority accommodation, or what portions of sentences would be served in custody. It would be necessary to provide accommodation in both centrally provided secure training centres and local authority accommodation, but the proportions would be unforeseeable and there would be a huge element of risk of either under or over-provision in either case.
4 pm
As a result, the measures would be rendered unnecessarily expensive and wasteful of resources. Further pressure would also be placed on the local authority stock of secure accommodation, which, even with the planned expansion to take account of other measures in the Bill, will be insufficient to meet the increased demand created by the need to accommodate juveniles subject to the secure training order.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Home Secretary really saying that he needs to provide guaranteed numbers in order to get the private sector to provide training centres? Is that not the real motive for resisting the Lords amendment, which would not stop the

setting up of training centres, but might introduce some doubt about whether they would secure the numbers they would require to be economically viable?

Mr. Howard: I have just dealt with that point. As I said, the uncertainty that would arise if the amendments were allowed to stand would mean that the measures would be rendered unnecessarily expensive and wasteful of resources. We know that the Liberal Democrats do not give a fig for resources or for expense, and that there is no responsibility in their attitude to these matters; Governments, however, must approach them rather differently.
Beyond the practical issues in the amendments are important points of principle that concern the Government. As I said a moment ago, the secure training order is a custodial sentence, subject to the Criminal Justice Act 1991: in other words, the length of the sentence should reflect primarily the seriousness of the offence, which is a decision for the court at the point of sentencing.
To allow the courts, in effect, to adjust the length of the custodial part of the sentence at a later date—presumably on account of some change in behaviour or circumstances—would be at odds with that principle. Indeed, it is extremely doubtful whether the courts would welcome such detailed involvement with the future treatment of a young offender after the point of sentencing.
There may be very rare cases in which a juvenile serving the secure part of the secure training order clearly needs to be moved to other accommodation—when he or she develops a mental or physical illness, or when there are grave concerns about his or her ability to cope with the regime.
That is partly why the Bill already contains, in clause 2(4), a power for the Secretary of State to transfer an offender
where the circumstances of the case require".
It is not intended to use the power routinely, but it provides an avenue to allow the moving of juveniles in exceptional cases, and goes some way towards meeting the aim of the amendments.
The Opposition parties have scaled new heights of double dealing during proceedings on the Bill. Both parties abstained on Third Reading, to avoid the public opprobrium that they richly deserved; yet in debates on the detail of the proposals, they have sought to wreck those proposals at every turn.
The official Opposition, in particular, voted against giving courts the power to lock up persistent young offenders—young people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) pointed out, have been given every possible chance to reform and have refused it. The public must be protected from them, and the Conservative party would provide that protection; the Opposition would leave the courts with no power whatever to act. By their actions on this part of the Bill,


the Opposition stand condemned as totally out of touch with public feeling, and we shall make sure that the public never forget it.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: I am happy to give way to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
There are serious and insuperable difficulties in the amendments—difficulties of both practice and principle. For that reason, I urge the House to reject them.

Mr. Alun Michael: The Home Secretary read his peroration, which was presumably prepared by Conservative central office, with style and drama. The trouble is that nobody believes him. Nobody believes him when he accuses the Opposition of not wishing to place powers in the hands of the courts.
Why is the Home Secretary opposing the Lords amendment? Clearly, he has no faith in the magistrates because it simply gives magistrates courts discretion to deal most effectively with the youngsters who come before them. The Home Secretary wants to take away discretion from the courts. The message of the speech that he has just made is that he does not trust the magistrates.
The Home Secretary should listen to the complaints from, and the concerns of, Conservative Back Benchers. Their complaints and attacks are not about the Lords amendments but about the Government's abject failure to tackle the problems of crime. Is the Home Secretary suggesting that we should leave discretion to him as the only residual way of dealing with inappropriate placements? He must be joking.
The Home Secretary has blamed others for the lack of local authority secure accommodation, but it is the Government, the Conservative party, who have ensured that such accommodation is not available. The delay in providing secure places has been due to the Government's unwillingness to suit their actions to their words. I can give a simple illustration. Long before I came to the House, I was one of many people who campaigned for the provision of secure places to end the scandal of young people aged 15 and 16 being held in adult prison accommodation. They are still being held in adult prison accommodation because, despite the then Home Secretary eventually promising in February 1991 to provide secure places, they have still not been provided. We now have the promise that some of them may just about be delivered this year, but, because of the confusion between the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Welsh Office, the money was not made available and the support was not provided. The Government are to blame.

Mr. Howard: How can the hon. Gentleman blame the Government for the delay in light of the example that I gave the House a few moments ago about the Labour-controlled authorities in the north-east, which gave a commitment in February 1993 to provide those secure accommodation places and had failed to make good that commitment in July 1994? They made that

commitment on the basis of what they knew about the arrangements under which the accommodation was to be provided.

Mr. Michael: I like the way in which the Home Secretary leads with his chin every time. He has just read again from the script that he gave us a few moments ago. I gave him an illustration that I have followed over the years and which I know about. There are still no secure places not only in Wales but in other parts of the country because the Government have failed to respond to requests from local authorities to make available the necessary resources and to support their applications. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) has knowledge of the position in the north.

Ms Armstrong: After hearing the Home Secretary, I am almost lost for words. Many local authorities have been seeking to extend and develop secure accommodation while the Government's record is lamentable. At Medomsley, a new kitchen was built on the existing prison in 1986. That cost £2.5 million and was never opened because the Government got into trouble with their prison policy and closed Medomsley. They now want to build one of these new secure training centres there. There is a planning application with the local council, but the Home Office has failed to pay the planning fee so the council cannot deal with the application.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has illustrated once again the way in which this muddled and incompetent Government fail to deal with the problem even when they choose the method to do so. I am surprised that the Home Secretary does not want to apologise for the way in which he has failed to deal with the issues.

Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the specific example that I put to him and to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) on the precise point of the provision of local authority accommodation? Labour-controlled local authorities in the north-east promised to provide that accommodation in February 1993 and had still not made good that commitment in 1994. What about an answer to that?

Mr. Michael: What about an answer from the Home Secretary about the fact that the local authority requested the Government to fulfil the promise made by the then Home Secretary in February 1991 and that this year the Government have still not delivered the goods? The Home Secretary is not credible. He comes back with the same form of words. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West has swept him from the board. The Government are responsible for the matter. They have failed to deliver.
We are dealing with another age group–11 to 15-year-olds—on which the Government are failing the country. That group is dealt with in the part of the Bill that the Lords amended. The Government's embarrassment is illustrated by the disgraceful way in which the Home Office Minister portrayed events on the "Today" programme this morning.
At every opportunity, Hansard records in the House and in Committee the way in which the parliamentary Labour party has tackled every important issue positively and constructively, including how we deal with young offenders. Those hon. Members who follow the record


will know that we set out an alternative agenda on Second Reading that would have tackled crime, nipped young offenders in the bud and dealt with the problems faced by our people. We have opposed the bad ideas, supported the good and proposed positive improvements and alternatives to some of the more muddled ideas proposed by the Government.

Mr. Bermingham: As my hon. Friend said, the Home Secretary has failed. I shall put to my hon. Friend the question that I sought to put to the Home Secretary. What is the position if, having had a child assessed by psychiatrists, educationists and everyone else, all the reports go to the court and the court decides, for example, that the child should go into secure training? What would the position be if it were found that two years were not long enough to secure the re-education and rehabilitation of the child, who still remained a danger to society and needed to be constrained? There is no provision for that.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. If the amendment is rejected, varying the time limits would be in the hands only of the Home Secretary. A limited period is specified in the Bill. The Home Secretary would have sole discretion to vary in any direction.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point that has just been, put to him? In Committee, his party suggested half the length of sentence and a minimum of only one month.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman would have heard my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) if he had not been so keen to intervene with his prescripted question, which is, of course, inaccurate. In one of the amendments to the Bill, we sought greater discretion over the time that youngsters would be sent to secure accommodation to save the Home Secretary from the mess that he is getting into with this legislation.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: Does my hon. Friend agree that the answer to some of the questions that have arisen are in the section on juvenile offenders that is contained in the unanimous report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on juvenile crime? Many of its recommendations have been warmly endorsed by the Opposition Front Bench. The report considers a new national agency scheme that would take charge of the problem of persistent juvenile offenders. I regret to say that, despite all the warm words of the Home Secretary, the report has been ignored by the Home Office.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. In the past 12 months, the Home Secretary has been concerned only to score one or two points by implementing some of the measures contained in his speech to the last Conservative party conference. He has been seriously unsuccessful in achieving that end. He would have been much better advised to spend time studying the excellent cross-party report produced by the Home Affairs Select Committee rather than trying to implement his own ideas.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) is wrong to suggest that the Home Affairs Select Committee

concluded that an agency should replace secure training centres? The recommendation was that there should be an agency in addition to secure training centres.

Mr. Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman's loyalty to his Home Secretary knows no bounds— he should receive some reward. I should have thought, however, that he would be more loyal to the findings of his Committee, rather than leaping in to diminish their value and to defend the Home Secretary.

Mrs. Roche: I took the precaution of bringing the Select Committee's report with me. The recommendation states:
We recommend the establishment of a new national agency to manage the custody and supervision of persistent juvenile offenders and others who receive custodial sentences.
It could not be clearer— even to Conservative Members.

Mr. Michael: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) wishes to intervene once more to withdraw his defence of the Home Secretary and to defend his own Committee, or does he wish to make no further contribution?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is muddled. The Select Committee decided to assume that secure training centres would be implemented by the Government. We went on to propose that, in addition, an agency should consider the running of all these matters at some stage in the future. To suggest that, in some way, the Select Committee was proposing that there should not be secure training centres along the lines that the Government recommend is complete nonsense. Anybody who asserts that clearly has not read the report.

Mr. Michael: I suppose that we should expect an expert advocate to be able to twist and turn in that way, but it says little for the hon. and learned Gentleman and I am sure that members of his Committee will be disappointed to find that he has not been more loyal to their findings.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Secretary of State mentioned secure accommodation in the north-east of England. I have just been on the phone to representatives of the social services in Northumberland, who tell me that they are having talks with the Department of Health with a view to trebling the amount of secure accommodation in Northumberland and with authorities in Sunderland and Newcastle on building secure accommodation somewhere in Northumberland. Rather than not doing anything, it looks like the north-east is well ahead of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Michael: I am afraid that the Government always seek to knock the easy target of local government—usually inaccurately and when the error has been made by them rather than by local government. Labour Members are ready to criticise local government when it fails to do its job, but the Government are always ready to criticise local government, even when it is doing a decent job, despite their failure to support and assist its work.
The context of this amendment cannot be disguised by the irrelevancies of Conservative Members' interventions. This is an enormous rag-bag of a Bill, which implements a conference speech that itself was ill-considered. Much


of the Bill is ill-considered and badly targeted. The Government have failed to take part in sensible discussions and to accept common-sense improvements from the Labour party— or even in this case from Conservative Members of the House of Lords.
The Bill will fail to tackle the real target of reducing crime, speeding up justice, cutting reoffending and making society safer. On a number of issues— custody for young offenders, the protection of innocent people and, above all, criminal injury compensation, which we shall debate later— the Government have handled the programme in a ham-fisted manner and have caused outrage in the House of Lords as well as elsewhere in the country.
In moving the amendment that the Home Secretary wishes to overturn, Lord Carr made it clear that he did not seek to alter or weaken the sentence of the court. That is an important point to remember. The amendment was passed because it is clear that the creation of colleges of crime for 12 to 15-year-olds will cause further problems and will not be an ideal way of meeting the need for secure places for persistent and particularly difficult young offenders. Their lordships sought to mitigate the dangers of the Government's proposition.
Even the Government do not pretend that youngsters will be sent away to a secure unit for ever. Those youngsters will return home at some point and it is crazy deliberately to create a regime that makes preparation for that return more difficult and makes it more likely that a returning youngster will reoffend, and in ways that are more serious and damaging to the community as a whole and to individual victims. That, however, is the truth about the system that the Home Secretary wishes to create. If he is determined to press ahead with his colleges of crime, it is only common sense to allow the courts the discretion to be flexible when deciding where a young person serves part of his sentence. That does not mean discretion to social workers, to the Home Secretary, to managers or to accountants but discretion to magistrates, whose responsibility it is to consider the safety of the public.
The first effect of the amendment would be to enable a court making a secure training order to specify that the period of secure detention is to be spent in local authority secure accommodation rather than a secure training centre. The court could specify that only after consultation with the local authority.

Dame Jill Knight: rose—

Mr. Michael: I shall give way in a moment. Work by the Dartington social research unit into the benefits of different types of regimes—[Interruption.] I understand from the comments of one or two Tory Members that they believe that taking note of research is odd. Like the Prime Minister, they want to understand a little less before taking decisions that will damage the public and the eventual victims.
The research to which I referred—

Dame Jill Knight: rose—

Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady must contain herself for a moment. Research into the benefits of different regimes reveals that considering the family circumstances of a

young person is most likely to achieve success, especially as many young people leaving secure units return to their families.
The Association of Chief Police Officers highlighted the problem with existing secure accommodation in its evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in February 1993. It stated:
in areas of the country where secure places are not available, the young offenders are taken long distances, which often reduces the opportunity for. family contacts to be maintained, thus actually increasing the difficulties of the offender and weakening family support when it should be encouraged.
The Government are intent on pressing ahead with that very type of regime in the centres that they propose. The amendment would not stop them doing so, but it would allow the court an element of discretion, and thereby avoid some of the worst effects of the Government's proposals.

Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman made great play of people using scripts, but I am not using one; nor was my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). I note that the hon. Gentleman is careful not to leave his script; perhaps he is afraid that he will not be able find the exact spot when he returns to it. The flaw in his argument is that he seems to think that it is perfectly sensible and sound to send tearaway children into local authority care, but, as is the case in Birmingham, local authorities frequently admit that they cannot control those children.

Mr. Michael: It is sensible to proceed logically, which is why I did not want the hon. Lady to interrupt me in the middle of my logical speech. She has just woken up to the subject that we were debating a few minutes ago and from which we have moved on.
Local authorities do sometimes find it difficult to deal with some very difficult young people, and that is why many are frustrated by the fact that the Government have not given them sufficient resources to provide adequate local authority secure places. That is the disgrace. If the hon. Lady does not know enough to appreciate that that is the problem, I suggest that she study the issue with some diligence. I now return to the matter of secure training orders, to which we had proceeded before the she intervened.
The Magistrates Association said:
It is vital that links should be maintained with the child's family and community by a designated social worker so as to facilitate rehabilitation. In the Association's view, this can only be achieved in small, locally based units.
It is, therefore, sensible to accept the logic that magistrates should have the opportunity, where appropriate—where an application for an order is made and in the limited circumstances dealt with in the amendment—to consider whether it is appropriate to vary where a young person is placed.

Mr. Stephen: We all know that there are good parents and bad parents. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all too often the parents, because of their own criminal or other deviant behaviour, are part of the problem?

Mr. Michael: That is sometimes true, and that is the sort of factor that magistrates should take into account in exercising the discretion that the Lords amendments would give them. If the hon. Gentleman considers that


point, he may find himself in agreement with the sense of the Lords amendment, because it does not fly in the face of his argument.
Secondly, the courts would be able to decide that the regime in a local authority secure unit, including education and training, would be more appropriate for the young offender than the regime in a secure training centre. There has been considerable discussion on the matter, and there is much evidence to support that case.
The Minister responding to the debate in the House of Lords suggested that secure training centres would deal specifically with persistent offenders and would therefore be better able to provide a regime to tackle offending behaviour. However—this answers the objections of a couple of hon. Members—the criterion in the Bill for the use of the order is that a young person should have been convicted of at least three imprisonable offences, not necessarily on different occasions. That would include many young offenders who are not very persistent.
The Minister in the House of Lords also said that the age group would be relatively small, but, as clause 5(2) makes clear, secure training centres will accommodate, young people between 12 and nearly 17. The oldest will be those who were sentenced when nearly 15 to a two-year order, and who have been recalled from supervision to the institution after release. That wide age group, and the likely sophistication of some of the inhabitants of the homes, give us cause to worry that they will develop into colleges of crime, rather than places that will return young people to the community more likely to obey the law.
The Home Office's research has shown that local authority secure units provide a better quality of regime for young people than do larger institutions. A court may therefore prefer to commit the young offender to a small local authority secure unit that would provide more individual personal attention and therapy, and a less institutional atmosphere, than a larger secure training centre. Such a unit may also be able to prepare the way for continuity when the young person is released.
Where a court wished a young offender to be held in local authority secure accommodation rather than in a secure training centre, the Lords amendments would give it that choice. Obviously, such a choice would be based on the evidence and the facts, and would be made only in the narrow set of circumstances set out in the amendments.
There are several circumstances in which the power to exercise flexibility over the period of detention might be used. First, a court may commit a juvenile to a secure training centre many miles from his or her home area, although it feels that detention in local authority secure accommodation would have been more appropriate, if no such place is available at the time of sentence. A local authority place may become available later, and it may be clear to the secure training centre staff that the child would be more appropriately held in such a place.
That is a simple example of a situation in which it would be common sense for such a variation to be made. It is not adequate to say that the Home Secretary could exercise the power in such circumstances. We all know about the bureaucracy that is involved in getting such a decision to the point of being reviewed by the Home Secretary. Some of the young people would probably be pensioners by the time that process was complete.
Secondly, a child in a secure training centre may be disturbed or suicidal, and the way in which training and treatment is provided may make a local placement more appropriate. Thirdly, a child in a secure training centre may make excellent progress and respond positively to the regime there.
Following assessment of a child committed either to a secure training centre or to a local authority secure unit, it may become clear that he or she would be more appropriately placed in an open community home, with foster parents or in some other manner that would be more effective in preventing future offending. Surely that should be our priority—to prevent future offending, to avoid future crime and to protect people who could become victims. Finally, there could be circumstances such as compassionate grounds—for example, the death or serious illness of a close relative—which would make a transfer to accommodation nearer to the home area desirable.
Those are just a small number of examples of when it would be appropriate to employ the flexibility provided by the Lords amendments. I do not envisage that the flexibility provided by the Lords amendments would be used on that many occasions. That is why I find it difficult to understand why the Home Secretary is so negative in refusing to accept them.

Dr. Godman: I intervened briefly on the Home Secretary to ask for confirmation that the measure or the related measures do not extend to Scotland. I should be grateful for the confirmation of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on that point. We may well be facing something much more formidable in the proposed criminal justice Bill for Scotland, which, I think, will be announced in the forthcoming Queen's speech.

Mr. Michael: I am always prepared to sympathise with my hon. Friend about likely developments in Scotland, but it is very unwise for an English or a Welsh hon. Member to comment on them. My understanding is that we are talking about a matter that will affect England and Wales. It will be interesting to see what legislation there will be in the next Session and whether the Home Secretary will succeed in blocking the bringing forward of a Bill to provide a body to deal with miscarriages of justice or whether the Lord Chancellor will succeed in pressing for that legislation, which was one of the 27 points which, still, have not been delivered. With my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I shall look with interest to see what is set out in the Queen's speech.
In practice, it seems that the directors of secure training centres, which, of course, will be run by private commercial organisations that have a direct financial interest in maintaining high occupancy, may not often apply to a court to move a child elsewhere. Nevertheless, the amendments, if accepted, would introduce a desirable element of flexibility, subject at all stages to court decisions, into the operation of the secure training order. Our objective should be to ensure that the secure training order, in view of the Minister's insistence in proceeding with it, is as workable as possible.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the contents of the whole part of the Bill under discussion


were a poor attempt to bring real care and training to the young who offend and re-offend? It was once again a hurried measure, by a hurried Home Secretary, who has hurried ideas and who hurriedly fails every time.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is quite right. The measures were put into a statement in the House without thought, and even without consultation with the Department of the Home Secretary's predecessor, who, unfortunately, did not have the sense or gumption to think things through, to listen to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and to come up with something a good deal more sensible. The problem today is that we are able only to consider the Lords amendments, which provide a limited opportunity to introduce a little flexibility and common sense into the measures that have already passed through the House. For the acceptance of that little bit of common sense, rather than simply to look for a quick fix or a quick headline, I appeal to the House. That little element of flexibility would not undermine or damage what the Home Secretary seeks to do. It would simply provide a little common sense—

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: —which would allow the system to be slightly better targeted and less damaging than it could otherwise become. I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he can hold his breath until I get to the end of a sentence.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I wish that he had held his breath a little longer. Will the Labour party give a commitment to implement the agency that was recommended by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and about which the hon. Gentleman has said much this afternoon?

Mr. Michael: It took a long time for the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee to think up that question and to return to his feet. We would be far more interested if he would tell us whether he would press his Home Secretary to implement that recommendation—or, has he so little confidence in the recommendations of his own Committee that he is not bothering to do so, and so little interest in the recommendations of his own Committee that he did do not even know that that recommendation was there until my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green produced the evidence? During the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, we made clear the constructive alternative strategy that we would adopt. That strategy would succeed in dealing with problems of crime, which are not even addressed by the Home Secretary or the Government.
I understand why the Government and their tame Back Benchers wish to distract attention from the wording of the Lords amendment. They want to do that because the amendment is modest. Indeed, it was tabled by a Conservative peer in an attempt to prevent the Government from digging themselves even deeper into difficulties in future. That is why the House should accept these modest amendments which were passed in another place.

Mr. John Greenway: The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), tried very hard to disguise the fact that the Labour party is opposed to secure training units and to the provision in the Bill, but he failed. The public, who are crying out for something to be done about persistent juvenile offenders—

Ms Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No, I have hardly started my speech.
The public, who are crying out for something to be done about persistent juvenile offenders, will note the Labour party's attitude. I want to bring a more dispassionate approach to the issue because, although we can have party political arguments in this place, people of all parties want something to be done about persistent juvenile offenders. That is what the Bill attempts to achieve.

Ms Armstrong: Is it not true that none of the centres will be built or in operation before the next election? Is not the real reason why the Home Secretary refused to answer my earlier intervention that nothing in relation to the secure training orders will be up and running before then? The Government cannot even get round to paying the planning fee to make progress with the planning application.

Mr. Greenway: I have some sympathy with the idea that it is taking too long to get the secure training units up and running. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) and the Labour party that it might have been helpful if, when the legislation was passed a year ago, the House had accepted it with enthusiasm. Instead of its taking a year to get the measures through Parliament, we could then have had the legislation on the statute book six months ago and—for reasons which will become obvious—that would have been very helpful in a particular case.
I said that I wanted to try to take a dispassionate view of the matter. In supporting what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary wants to do, I want to refer to the case of a 14-year-old boy who appeared at York youth court on Monday. That 14-year-old has acquired the nickname "Blip Boy" because of his effect on police crime statistics in the York area. He has already been convicted of 38 burglaries and thefts. At York youth court on Monday he admitted a string of further offences which included five burglaries and attempted burglaries, theft and handling, aggravated vehicle taking, assaults, possessing controlled drugs and possessing an offensive weapon, all—and this is the point—while he was living in social services accommodation in North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.
Lady Barron, wife of Sir Donald Barron who is much respected and a very senior public figure in the York area—as is Lady Barron—and apolitical in the extreme, said that she would have liked to have given that 14-year-old boy a custodial sentence, but she could not do so. All she was able to do was to give him a two-year supervision order—but had it been within her power to give a form of custodial sentence, that would have been the court's preference.
I want to refer to some of the things that that young man has done. A 65-year-old woman required hospital treatment after she was assaulted by the boy when she


spotted him burgling a neighbour's house. The youngster has also assaulted social workers who tried to restrain him in social services accommodation.
I am told by York magistrates court that the young man in question fulfils all the conditions set out in the Bill for a secure training order. He has already been the subject of several section 25 orders and has a long record of absconding from local authority secure accommodation. A senior figure at the court told me this morning that it is highly probable that, as long ago as six months, the court would have preferred to give the youth a custodial sentence, because it was perfectly obvious that every other measure had failed—and not for want of trying. The social services had tried everything without success. I do not criticise them for that; indeed, the House should commend the work of social services departments that are trying to deal with these juvenile offenders. The fact is that they cannot always succeed, however. The task is beyond them. We need something else, and that is why the secure training orders are so important.

Mr. Beith: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, with the Lords amendment, such a person could be made the subject of a secure training order as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, when an obligation would be placed on a local authority to keep the person in secure accommodation? If the amendment is not agreed to, we shall have to wait until one of these centres has been built before anyone can be given a secure training order.

Mr. Greenway: I understand that, but we are dealing with legislation that will have to apply for a long time to come, not just the next six months or so. I do not therefore believe that we should take the route proposed in the Lords amendment. Magistrates, after all, will not be compelled to sentence a juvenile offender to a secure training order. They will still have at their disposal the whole current range of sentences, including a supervision order, or a requirement to be in local authority social services accommodation, or a section 25 order: none of that will change.
We need a clear-cut alternative that goes beyond what is currently available. The Select Committee report mentioned 200 or 300 youngsters in this context, although that report was referred to today with considerable inaccuracy by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. When we scrutinised this matter early last year, we were told that 200 or 300 places would probably be required, and there will have to be specialist care, education and training in them. I do not see such care being provided in local authority accommodation. It will require a special kind of unit, and that is what the Government want to provide.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West talked about the speed with which the system could be put in place. It is clear to me that the secure training units need to be built as quickly as possible. If my right hon. and learned Friend catches your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will tell us how quickly he believes the units can be established. This matter has nothing to do with whether magistrates or police officers support the Conservative party, another party or no party. They all genuinely believe, with the public, that magistrates do not now have at their disposal what they need to deal with these youngsters. So we should give secure training units a try. If people are watching our debate this afternoon, they will see that, once again, the

Government have come up with an imaginative idea to respond to public concerns, but that the Labour party has confirmed yet again that it does not have a single policy on how to deal with these youngsters.

Mr. Beith: I do not think that the conclusion of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) followed from his argument. His argument was that there is an urgent problem, which he instanced by a case from his area. He then failed to recognise that a more immediate way of dealing with that problem is to allow secure training orders to go ahead under the terms of the Lords amendment, which would allow them to be brought into effect straight away using existing local authority secure accommodation. The Government have belatedly provided for more such accommodation and for an increase in the number of places available in it.
It ought to be common ground that such measures arise because of genuine public concern about the fact that there are at least some young offenders who have frequently absconded from the accommodation in which they were placed and who have persistently reoffended. There is certainly a small number of very persistent young offenders who have received a great deal of press attention and who present the public with serious problems. There is therefore genuine anxiety on the part of the public, who want reassurance that the courts, empowered by this House, can put such people in places from which they cannot abscond and then reoffend. They should also be given the right training and education while they are locked away in the right sort of accommodation.
How one sets about that is the subject of some public argument at the moment—what should the legal framework be? The Lords have genuinely considered the Government's approach; they have not thrown it out of the window, but have sought to modify it and to give the courts a choice. A reason offered for legislative action in this area has been the belief that the courts did not have enough options open to them. One hears magistrates say in private that they feel that their hands are tied. One effect of the Lords amendment is to untie their hands and to give them more than one way of applying a secure training order.
Listening to the Home Secretary, one might imagine that the amendment was the product of rabid anarchists. In fact, it was moved by, and carried with the support of, members of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own party—indeed, the amendments were moved by one of his distinguished predecessors in the course of a responsible discussion of a difficult problem. The amendments came about because of the considerable experience of some Members of another place, several of whom served in Conservative Governments.
Listening to the Home Secretary, one might also imagine that the amendments will affect a large number of young offenders and will, if left in the Bill, undermine work with a large number of them and delay its effectiveness. None of those suggestions is true. We are talking about only 200 young offenders who could be the subject of such orders—that at least is the maximum number of places that will be initially provided.
If the Lords amendments are not agreed to, there will be delay and no chance of bringing in secure training orders until the places in the private sector institutions are provided. With the amendments, the Bill could be


effective from the moment of Royal Assent, and the orders could be used as a means of dealing with young offenders.
One could also be forgiven for imagining, from what the Home Secretary said, that the Government have a clear picture of the kind of regime of supervision and training that will do the trick in the institutions. Several times the Home Secretary said that, with their 40 young people each, the institutions will enjoy the right supervision, training and education regimes. That betrays a degree of knowledge about what we are going to do with these people which neither I nor many professionals in the field claim to share. There is no such certainty about what measures will effectively help some young offenders to lead useful lives and to abandon the ways of crime into which they have entered at such an extraordinarily early age.
There is a great deal of professional discussion of such issues. All the experience of recent years suggests that Home Secretaries who come along with solutions turn out not to have them at all. What happened to the short sharp shock that was supposed to be a proven method of dealing with young offenders? We have it no more because it did not work. The borstals and approved schools went because gathering together large numbers of persistent young offenders in such regimes did not appear to work. It was not that Ministers thought they were unpleasant or undesirable institutions; they simply had a high reoffending rate and other means had to be sought to deal with the problem. The Home Secretary should not glibly use phrases such as "an appropriate regime of education and training" as though there were a known and recognised answer to the problem.
Clearly, improving youngsters' education so that they have the opportunity to make a useful life must be part of the exercise. Some young people who become involved in that level of crime appear to be pretty intelligent and shrewd about how to carry out crimes and how to evade them. They have energies which need to be channelled effectively. A number of them are clearly in need of discipline and a framework in which they can begin to understand that they have obligations to others.
One can see some of the elements, but pretending that one has the right answer has been the mistake of successive Home Secretaries. The present Home Secretary would be wise not to make that mistake, particularly given that his own Department's research casts such doubt on the matter. The Home Office research and planning unit paper No.66, entitled "Juveniles Sentenced for Serious Offences", published in 1992, states:
The study also found that offenders who had been in secure units in the local authority community home system were significantly less likely to have been reconvicted two years after release than those released from young offender institutions.
The research evidence does not suggest that there is an alternative regime in a different institution which we know will work. We are arguing only about how we can guarantee the security that the public require; there is no menu of better methods of providing training for young people readily available.
The professionals working with this age group in local authority homes and social service departments or with the next age group in young offender institutions are

trying with great difficulty to deal with changes that society has thrown at them. It is an extremely challenging task to which there are no simple answers.
Clearly, in some cases there are arguments strongly in favour of the smaller local authority home with secure places. A larger institution may offer less prospect of building up stable relationships with staff for children of 12 or 13 who have had no stable home relationships and for whom a purely institutional environment with no stable relationships with other people may offer no way out of the way in which they have traditionally reacted to the lack of stability in their lives.

Mr. Stephen: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities have had secure accommodation for quite some time. Could he explain why they have not so far succeeded in solving the problem?

Mr. Beith: I do not think that anyone has the solution to the problem; that is the burden of what I am saying. Nor should the Home Secretary pretend that he has the solution. One result of our discussions is that it will be possible and accepted for local authorities to apply greater security in their own secure accommodation places, and the new institutions, when created, should also be secure, but that says very little about the effectiveness of the regimes within them.
Young people will not be in those places for long. Two years later, they will be out in the community with the possibility of committing many more crimes. Indeed, they will be entering the peak ages at which young people commit crimes and they will pose a threat to many more potential victims of crime if they do not come out with a better attitude than that with which they went in. That is why, in particular cases, the court is entitled to examine whether it is likely that a particular young person might be better placed in a small local authority home, which has secure accommodation with the prospect of building up stable relationships, than in a large institution where that child might become the prey of many other hard young offenders, perhaps with greater criminal experience and tendency than him or her.
There is also the problem of distance. The secure training units will be limited in number and may be so far from the homes of some young people that making plans to readmit them into the community at the end of the order or sentence will be difficult. Parental, family or friend contact, which may be crucial in getting them back into society, cannot be achieved.
Clearly, the circumstances may vary. The Lords amendment is asking only for the opportunity for the court to choose in the light of the various circumstances. Indeed, it provides the opportunity for the court to be convinced by the initial experience of private sector secure training units that they offer a better regime for certain youngsters. I remain to be convinced of that, but there seems no good reason why the court should not have the option to place the child in one or other type of institution.
I return to the point that I made to the Home Secretary in an intervention. His resistance to the Lords amendment is driven by the belief that he has to offer the private sector a tempting deal. He has to be able to say to the private sector, "Do not worry. The courts will not be able to send them anywhere else. They will have to send them to you, so your capital will not be at risk. You will have a guaranteed number of places." That is one of the


difficulties—and there are a number—about relying on the private sector to provide crucial facilities for custody and for taking away liberty because someone represents a threat to society.
We have great reservations about the privatisation process in the prisons. Taking away people's liberty for the good reason that their liberty poses a threat to society is something that the state does in limited circumstances and over which the state ought to exercise firm authority and control on everyone's behalf.
The Lords amendment is a reasonable compromise with the Government's position. The associated amendments, which provide opportunity for subsequent movement from a local authority place to a secure training centre or vice versa, represent a useful element of flexibility for the court, but not for the Home Secretary or social services departments.
If the Home Secretary were not so worried about the need to offer the private sector a financially reliable deal, he would accept the Lords amendments and recognise that his faith in the secure training units could be tested against the possibility of local authority places being more appropriate for some youngsters.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Was not the response of the Opposition to my right hon. and learned Friend's exposition of the justification for secure training orders amazing? It was utterly wide of the mark, it was wrong in comprehension, and one can only assume that it was delivered in a state of panic, because the words of their leader—"tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"—is so manifestly contrary to the way in which the Labour party has behaved in the House over the past 15 years.
If the Labour party were tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, it would have supported the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, it would have supported the various Criminal Justice Acts, Public Order Acts, and Prevention of Terrorism Acts. The embarrassment of the Labour party is in realising that it has opposed all those measures because it can not carry its supporters in the House, while the public are totally on the side of stronger action being taken to reduce terrorism and crime in all its forms. That embarrassment causes the Opposition to behave in a totally illogical and incomprehensible way when we propose reasonable, sound and sensible suggestions.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He must have an opportunity to respond. I should like to hear whether his response is any different from the responses we have heard when the same accusation has been made before.
Labour opposition to the secure training centre and to the secure training order shows that the words "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" were just an act; they are just empty words meant for television.

Mr. Michael: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman can summon up rather greater accuracy than he has so far. Will he explain why he followed the Home Secretary into voting down a variety of proposals that were made in Committee—such as the idea of a national strategy to deal with drugs and drug-related crime and

measures to deal with weapons and a variety of other issues? His case is the one that the Conservative central office puts out, but it is not accurate.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: When the Government make proposals, they make practical proposals. When the Opposition make proposals, they make absolutely impractical proposals, which are often complete and utter nonsense, even though they continue saying that they will be tough on crime.
I would not be allowed to take up the time of the House in replying in detail to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, but so many of the proposals are completely impracticable nonsense. If they had had any merit, the Government would have supported them. Proposals are not made by the Labour party only; the Government always consult many organisations before reaching conclusions.
We have just heard nonsense about the Home Affairs Committee report. There has been a total misunderstanding. It shows that the Labour party is flailing again. It is as though members of the Labour party think that, by flailing their arms about and trying to attack, they give the impression that they are being tough on crime. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who no doubt will make her contribution, confused herself, but certainly the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth confused himself.
5 pm
When we proposed a new national agency to manage the custody and supervision of persistent juvenile offenders and other people who receive custodial sentences, we were suggesting its introduction over a longer period. It was not meant to be an immediate replacement for our suggestion of secure training orders. We made that clear in our report:
on the assumption that the Government does intend to press ahead with its present plans for secure training orders, there are a number of points which we believe to be crucial.
We then suggested ways in which the secure training orders might be improved; some of the suggestions have been taken up by the Government. We suggested that there should be a qualifying threshold and we suggested certain provisions, some of which the Government have adopted.
We spoke about the size of the centres and concluded that
there should be a wide spread of units each containing no more than 15 inmates, though in large centres of population it may be possible for more than one unit to be sited together.
We spoke about intensive staffing of those secure training centres, recommending that
a staffing ratio of at least two staff to each inmate should be the norm.
We spoke about education and training in the secure training centres, and we said that we believed that
the emphasis of any custodial regime for young people must be more educational and therapeutic than punitive.
We spoke about the length of time to be served and we recommended that
there should normally be a minimum period of six months served in custody"—
a recommendation which was rejected by members of the Opposition—


following which, according to his or her response, the individual should be … freed to intensive community supervision".
We spoke about aftercare in the secure training orders, recommending
intensive supervision for those sentenced to secure training orders as soon as they are judged fit to return to the community".
We recommended
that the Home Office learn from the lessons of private sector involvement"—
I emphasise that—
in the prison service before granting any contracts to the private sector to run centres where secure training orders will be served.
All that is on the basis that there is to be a secure training order. It is not on the basis that there should be no secure training order. It is nonsense to suggest the contrary, and it misleads anyone who is listening to the debate.

Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, but it is obvious that he is completely muddled himself—not for the first time. If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the report carefully, he will see that, leaving aside the issue of secure training orders, which the Committee did not consider one way or the other, the Committee entitled that section of the report on the new national agency "A more radical" approach.
I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) why we had not heard from the Government and the Home Secretary when they would implement that more radical approach, which they appeared to have welcomed cautiously when our report was published. It appears that the hon. and learned Gentleman has completely muddled the entire subject.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: If that is what the hon. Lady intended, it is not what she said. Certainly, it was not what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth understood the hon. Lady to say. If she is going on to say that we did not even consider the secure training orders, I have just read out page after page of our report in which we suggest certain measures that the Government may take with their secure training orders.
Furthermore, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has the effrontery to take the position that the Government should respond to the youth agency proposal, when his party refuses to commit itself to that. If one wants a classic example of the Labour party's total confusion and flailing about, what better example than that?
The hon. Gentleman asks why the Government do not accept the proposal of the Home Affairs Select Committee to create that agency and, when asked whether he would implement it, refuses to answer the question, simply because he cannot say yes, will not say yes and does not want to say yes. If the Opposition believe that the public will be impressed by that performance, they have another think coming to them.
The basis of our proposal for secure training orders is that the public are fed up with the hard core of persistent juvenile offenders who have gone on and on committing offences, and the magistrates and Crown court judges have asked repeatedly for a means of tackling the problem. Local authority provision has never been adequate to deal with hard-core persistent juvenile offenders, of which there are not many.
When the Home Affairs Select Committee went to America, we asked, "How do you deal with your hard-core persistent juvenile offenders?" They asked us, "How many are you talking about?" We said, "Two or three hundred." They asked, "Which town are you talking about?" We said, "That is in the whole of the country," and they said, "We have 300 or 400 hard-core persistent juvenile offenders in every town and city in the United States of America."
However, we learned from the Massachusetts experiment, which we went there to watch. We drew conclusions, and we recommended that, in the fullness of time, one agency should control the sentencing of all young offenders. However, we cannot implement that in the short term.
Opposition Members ask why we have not implemented all that already. It will take even longer if we follow an agency route, which will take many years to develop. I hope that we shall do that in due course. The Government have not ruled it out.

Mr. John Greenway: Was it not also the case that, under the Massachusetts experiment, any youngster, from the age of 12 or 13, who was sentenced to one of the orders, which would put them under the control of that agency, would be under the control of that agency until the age of 18, and could be recalled to custody by those who ran the agency at any time during that five or six-year period? Would not that be a radical departure from everything that Labour Members have said this afternoon?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Another radical departure would be the recommendation—with which we do not agree—that one cannot re-programme children's minds, if they are going badly wrong, in as little as six months. One may need years. We may have to bite that bullet in due course. Young offenders who are taken out of circulation because they are persistently evil and go off the rails time and again may need longer than six months, even under secure training orders, for the full weight of re-programming facilities to be brought to bear effectively on them.
However, that is for another time. For the moment, let us do what we can, as efficiently and as effectively as possible, to tackle the public's worry about the persistent hard core of juvenile offenders who have committed so many of the appalling crimes that we have heard about recently, and for which the secure training order is a positive solution.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What really upsets my constituents is that so few people commit so many offences, and that, while they are not in custody, they are leading local gangs. One per cent. of those in the age group commit 60 per cent. of offences. In a market town in my constituency, a custodial sentence was imposed on some youngsters which meant that they were out of circulation. While they were out of circulation, they were not committing burglaries.
If they have a tough custodial regime, they come out not as the Opposition would suggest, but with pride in themselves, because they have learnt something. They


have become healthy. They have found that they can do something and achieve something in life. That is the point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is a long intervention.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: But it was a good intervention, with which I agree.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will my hon. and learned Friend note that, in the Vale of Glamorgan, close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), there is a council home from which young offenders have been able to wander at will and commit further offences, such as taking without consent? My constituents are crying out for the provision of secure units to which young offenders can be sent. When a couple of offenders from Llantwit Major in my constituency were sent away by the court to an institution in England, there was an immediate dramatic drop in the offender rate in that small town.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I agree with my hon. Friend. It touches on another point that we learned in Massachusetts. One of the important requirements for giving secure training to young offenders is the need to separate them from their bad influences, from the gangs and perhaps from their bad families. It is all very well having institutions close to where their families and friends with bad influence can visit, but Massachusetts told us that they must be put a long way away, so that they are totally removed.
The Government are not proposing to do that. They have a humane attitude to this—although they may have to adapt that attitude in due course. I am not saying that our suggestions are 100 per cent. perfect. That kind of change may be needed if what is proposed does not work. As we say, we will suck it and see.
Perhaps the Government are right and Massachusetts is wrong. If the Government are right, we can carry on with such close co-ordination between the secure training centres and the family homes from which the young offenders come. That is an important point, which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind.
We have said, "This is the problem, and this is a positive solution, which has general support." When we go round and explain it to our constituents, whether Conservative or not, they say, "Good, excellent, splendid." They simply cannot understand the Opposition being opposed to it.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that those who are calling most for such a provision are judges, recorders, assistant recorders and magistrates, as well as the rest of the population? They have been crying out for years for more secure accommodation for the worst of the young offenders.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes, of course. I am sorry that I put that point so badly earlier that my hon. Friend had not accepted it then.
The Lords amendments will undermine a provision which is sensible, practicable, and which has the support of the overwhelming majority of people, including the judges. The amendments suggest what the Labour party has always suggested, which is that its own power base,

the local authorities, where it is often in a substantial majority, can deal with the question of young offenders much more effectively than any other institution. Apart from the fact that that has never been proven in the past, which is one reason we have come to this situation, it is totally impracticable.
5.15 pm
Opposition Members do not seem to have grasped the point that what we want to do with young offenders, to re-programme their minds by education and training and one-to-one hands-on help, cannot be done in local authority care. One reason is that local authority institutions are not just for persistent hard-core juvenile offenders: they are for all other kinds of juvenile offenders, who might be much less to blame and have done much less wrong than the hard-core persistent offenders.
To put the two together in the same institution will only make the less bad worse, because the persistent hard-core juvenile offenders are what we say they are—hard-core, hard-bitten; it has gone into their souls. We must somehow get hold of their souls and change them. They will be the strong ones influencing those who have done wrong, but not so much wrong.
Those local authority institutions have children in care who have done no wrong. Why should they be locked in secure accommodation with hard-core persistent offenders who will teach them their bad ways? There is no way under the existing situation, preferred by Opposition Members and Members of the other place who supported the amendments, that we can hive off those who are less guilty of crime and those who are guilty of no crime at all from those who are persistent hard-core juvenile offenders, unless one has a new institution for the last group.
It is not just that that is impractical; it is that the heart of local authorities has never been in dealing with the worst kind of offenders. When one goes round, they say, "We are local authorities. We are social services. We are not here to punish the bad. We are not even here to educate. We cannot. We do not have the resources, the powers or the facilities to do so." Their heart is not in it.
Their solution to the hard-core persistent juvenile offender has too often been to give them a holiday, send them to Center Parcs or on safari; let them see what the good life is and perhaps they will be good in order to get the good life rather than bad. But as so many offenders have said when they have come back from such holidays, "They must be joking. Whoever thought that I would change after I had been to Center Parcs or on safari somewhere in Egypt? They must be mad."

Mr. Bermingham: What has that got to do with the amendment?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: That is the kind of attitude that the local authorities have to dealing with persistent juvenile offenders. It is no good, it does not work and it is not what the public want. It is certainly not the sort of remedy that judges, whether magistrates or Crown court judges, want to pass by way of judgment.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this very day listening to this debate is a group of parents who have come all the way down from Scotland, from the Strathclyde and


Dumbartonshire area, where 500 young children have been killed in the past five years by dangerous drivers, many of whom are juveniles? They think that six months' detention is a totally inadequate punishment for the bereavement that they have suffered.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady has clearly not read the Bill. It does not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes, but my hon. Friend was making a point which applies as much to England and Wales as to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is a general point. People are concerned, and it is because of that concern that the Government are doing something concrete which the Opposition do not wish to see done.
Not only is the local authorities' heart not in it, but we can see that local authorities are not anxious to be involved from the interesting point that my right hon. and learned Friend made about the meeting of the Labour-controlled local authorities in February 1993 at which they suggested action by July but nothing happened.
No action is being taken because their hearts are not in it. They do not believe that local authorities or social services exist for that purpose. Members of the Home Affairs Select Committee visited some facilities. At one of them, we were told that the cost to the local authority of caring for one person was in excess of £3,000 per week. If that is the best that a local authority can do with taxpayers' money in dealing with hard-core, persistent juvenile offenders, it requires another think, more management and a different organisation.
The Government do not intend to introduce a new form of borstal, approved school or glasshouse—all of which institutions, I agree, have not proved successful. They propose nothing less than the re-programming of children's minds when they have gone off the rails. That requires education, training, care and love, as well as punishment and discipline. That cannot be done by local authorities, but only by a specially dedicated organisation, which the Government are establishing.
Opposition Members say that local authorities could provide a satisfactory alternative, but all the evidence shows that that alternative has never been and can never be satisfactory. Their proposals would only undermine what the Government will achieve by taking a positive step to deal with hard-core, persistent offenders. It may not be 100 per cent. good, but it is 80 per cent. good. We can continue to improve it, and it will work. To do other than to reverse the amendments and to give the plan a chance would be madness.

Ms Ann Coffey: The amendments would give a court making a training order the discretion to specify that the period of detention should be served in local authority secure accommodation rather than in a secure training centre. That appears to be a reasonable and flexible amendment. Clause 2(2) seems to allow the court to commit an offender, if a place is not available at a secure training centre, to a local authority-registered children's or voluntary organisation home. It does not

stipulate that it should be a secure place. I am sure that it would not go down particularly well with some hon. Members if young people sentenced to a secure training order were, because of a lack of sufficient appropriate accommodation, placed in children's homes. That would create the problems complained of this afternoon. Perhaps the Home Secretary will clarify whether that could happen.
The Government are trying to deal with the complex problem of juvenile crime with a simplistic solution and are paying little attention to its likely effectiveness. To put juvenile offending in perspective, the number of juvenile offenders in Stockport in 1990 totalled 1,600 and in 1993, 1,400. The major offences were shoplifting, youth car crime, public order transgressions and nuisance—basically, kids on the street. A small group was involved in drug dealing and protection. All those are of great public concern—especially car crime and shoplifting, which cause higher insurance premiums and food prices.
A study by Stockport's Youth Justice team of all juveniles who appeared before Stockport juvenile and Stockport youth courts between 1 January 1990 and 31 March 1994 revealed that from a total of 1,500, four boys regally fitted the terms of the secure training order. At the time of sentencing, the magistrates could have imposed a custodial sentence on three of the boys but did not do so. That leaves only one boy who could have been committed to a secure training centre, which would have made little impact on Stockport's crime statistics and would not have greatly improved its residents' quality of life.
A fraction of the juveniles who come before the courts merit supervision orders. I mention that because breach of a supervision order is one precondition for a secure training order.
Youth offenders have complex problems. School exclusions have rocketed and there are high illiteracy rates, complex problems at home and lack of parental control. Parents who seek help have little preventive support until the problem becomes so acute that there is statutory intervention. It is largely a question of resources being applied to stop juveniles offending. Perhaps statutory responsibilities on local authorities under the Children Act 1989 need to be properly funded and monitored. One cannot disentangle the provisions of that Act from legislation on juvenile justice.
The Home Secretary announced new national standards for supervision orders.

Mr. John Greenway: Good for him.

Ms Coffey: Exactly—well done, but making sure that supervision orders work is labour intensive and time consuming. The Home Secretary has not put the necessary resources behind those new standards, which is a pity because supervision orders can be effective. Some 80 per cent. of those who serve custodial sentences reoffend, but only 55 per cent. of those who undergo non-custodial treatment do so. One does not need to be a genius to know why. If children are kept in a normal environment, they will mature. If they are placed in an institution that contains a criminal sub-group, all that they will learn are further criminal attitudes and values. That is why community treatment is much more effective than custodial sentencing.

Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Lady agree that one reason why juveniles who serve custodial sentences reoffend is


that in this country, a young person is not placed in custody unless he or she has exhausted almost every other way of being dealt with? We are dealing with the hard core who are put into custody, and it is hardly surprising that they reoffend.

Ms Coffey: Even in the case of hard-core offenders, all the statistics show that placing them in prescriptive custodial care does not help them in the long run, if one wants to avoid such offenders spending their juvenile lives in custodial care and their adult lives in gaol—something that no hon. Member wants.

Mr. Edward Garnier: rose—

Ms Coffey: I must press on. Crime must be tackled early. Children must be kept in education, because their exclusion from school is not helpful. A preventive duty on local authorities must be given high priority, bail support schemes should be properly funded, and youth provision must be re-examined because that is a cornerstone in crime prevention.
Perhaps children should be placed in children's homes as part of a preventive strategy. I view that as community treatment, in an effort to stop children offending before they become eligible for custodial sentences that include secure training orders. However, local authority children's homes are closing because of budget pressures, and recommendations to improve residential care in the public and private sectors, national standards and training have not been implemented by the Government. Perhaps the Home Secretary will talk to the Minister with responsibility for children's homes about introducing new standards for them, to complement the right hon. and learned Gentleman's national standards for supervision.
Unless standards improve and there is increased availability of appropriate places to meet children's needs, the amendments—welcome as they are—would still compel local authorities to place children hundreds of miles from their homes, with placements dictated by cost rather than needs. The cost of crime to the public is high. Preventive measures also cost money, but crime prevention is complex, and the measures that I have mentioned will reduce crime, to the benefit of the community. That is what it is about. Opposition Members know that there are children who need control, who need to be placed away from home, and who need to be in secure accommodation, but let not Conservative Members pretend that that is a solution to the problem of juvenile crime. It is not and it is not enough.

Mr. Bermingham: I sought to intervene some six times on the Home Secretary to ask him a simple question: what if the miscreant needed more than two years' retraining? He did not let me intervene. I suspect that he guessed that the question was coming. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is the Opposition spokesman, allowed me to intervene, and he did know the answer. It does cover it. That is the problem with this part of the Bill.
5.30 pm
I have been on the Home Affairs Select Committee for the best part of 10 years. I have been a practising barrister and declare an interest. In that time, I have had the opportunity to look time and again at the problem of juvenile crime. In 1986, the Committee went on a trip to America. When we announced where we were going—to

Massachussetts, to look at how juvenile crime was dealt with there—the Home Office sent the Minister of State, with a couple of officials, to have a look. Nothing happened. We produced a report on drugs and other things. On another occasion, the Home Affairs Select Committee went again. Things had moved on a bit in the years since I was there. I did not go that time, because I did not want to see, at the expense of the state, something that I had already seen—once officially and two or three times privately. But back came the information. Things had changed slightly in Massachussetts, but what had not changed there was the effectiveness of the programme. It reduces reoffending.
In his speech at the Blackpool conference last year, the Home Secretary made 27 points. One has been implemented so far, and one of them was to be tough on crime. I have a suspicion that the Home Secretary will not like what I am about to say. On Second Reading—I did not serve on the Committee that considered the Bill—I made the point that the Home Secretary has still not got it right. He has tinkered with it. He has gone for it on the cheap. He has not gone for it effectively. There are not 200 persistent young juvenile offenders in this country; the figure is probably nearer 500 or 600. Not a single institution has been built to provide the treatment necessary. When will he provide an institution to deal with the first 12 or 15? Please, Home Secretary, tell me, because I have an awful feeling that it ain't going to be for quite some time.
The Home Secretary was, in his day, a very good planning lawyer, but his Department cannot even pay its planning fees, we hear, so it has not even started. One would have thought that the Home Office would think about what society wants. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, to go on and on in his 20 minute-plus speech. If one says something, at least try to make a point. The point is that there is a persistent problem. There are people from Scotland in the Gallery whose children have died. If we are to protect the children of England, we must contain the persistent offender.

Mr. Garnier: I would be grateful for a little explanation. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating, in principle, support for the provision of secure training units, but regretting their lateness in coming? I am confused by the difference between his opinion and that of the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. Bermingham: If the hon. Gentleman had waited a little longer, he would have found the answer to the question. It is very simple: there is a need for containment of the persistent offender, who can be as young as eight, nine or 10. Let us not walk away from it. Anyone who has practised—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who has much experience in these matters, will agree with me—recognises the existence of the problem. The question is how to deal with it. This measure, for reasons that I will come to in a moment, is not the answer. It is a partial answer, but, unfortunately, it will not be effective in the weeks and months that lie ahead. The persistent young offender may, for various


reasons, have problems that cannot be ironed out in six months, nine months, 12 months, 15 months or two years. It may even take longer.

Mr. Stephen: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that he would have supported the amendment that I tabled on Report and Third Reading, which would have made secure schools available to children from the age of 10 to 18?

Mr. Bermingham: I go back to the point that I have made constantly in the House over 10 years. Provision needs to be made for the persistent offender to be contained. Then, as they progress in the training, retraining and education, they earn their way out of it. So the containment becomes less stringent as one goes forward, until ultimately one is rehabilitated into society. That is what happens in Massachussetts—or did 10 years ago. The outcome was not 74 per cent. reoffending, which this country had at that time, but 28 per cent. That is an enormous amount of crime solved. I am saying that, if we had that system, the hon. Member for Sedgefield [Laughter.] Not Sedgefield—[HON. MEMBERS: "Forgotten him already!"] No, it is the face of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) which beams across the Committee Room at me week after week. His was the constituency I sought to remember. His example at York would have been dealt with by the system that I have been advocating for 10 years.
Let us take what the Government have now proposed. I have said that it was a hurried measure, hurriedly thought out and hurriedly implemented. It produces a two-year package some time in the future. It will not become effective with the Royal Assent, because the Home Secretary has not had the units built. The money for that is not available yet. I am hoping that he will say that he will have the first unit available on 1 January next year. I suspect that he cannot.
There is a little nasty in the Bill—put out to private tender. Why does the Home Secretary object to the amendment? It has positive benefits.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: It is a wrecking amendment.

Mr. Bermingham: It is not. If the hon. and learned Member for Burton would occasionally try to understand that some people do things for a non-political purpose, because they care about the safety of citizens in this country, I would be grateful.
The amendment enables the court, whether it be a judge or magistrate, to select the option. They could be in a position—they have had all the reports—to select accordingly. If the amendment is passed, the Home Secretary will know, from the date of Royal Assent, that courts can bring secure training into effect simply by using the local authority avenue. It is a possibility.
So, once again, the Government have not thought through the matter of dealing with persistent offenders, which society demands. They have brought a measure to the House which they cannot implement immediately, and we are left with no solution to the problem for some time

to come. The Home Secretary will tell me that the bulldozers are moving, the bricklayers are working, the money is pouring in, and the training units—

Mr. Howard: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bermingham: The Home Secretary shakes his head because he knows that they are not there. He knows that the money is not there for it at the moment either.
I am sorry to say that the measure is a sham, designed for publicity. It is not a practical, working measure that could be brought into effect tomorrow. The Lords amendments give us some hope that something can be done. I urge the House to support the Lords tonight.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise for not being able to listen to all the speeches at the beginning of the debate.
This is not the time to go into a full review of juvenile justice or why people offend. We should accept that the reason for the clauses and amendments that we are discussing is the fact that a small minority of people behave abominably: they may be troubled children, but the trouble that they cause to society is enormous.
I do not want to open up the issue of whether children should be sent to the equivalent of gaol, which is also a debate for another time; I will say that, if the secure training centres are established, there will be nothing like the concentration of numbers that has occurred in institutions set up in the past. I welcome that. I have some doubts about whether a total of up to 50 people will be manageable, but I do not wish to delay the debate by going into details.
I speak as a former chairman of the Church of England Childrens Society, which used to look after some most troubled children, and I have observed how difficult and important it is to achieve progress in individual children. We are not concerned now with what to do with children for six months or two years; we are concerned with helping to reconstruct their lives—with redemption and resurrection, and the re-creation of a life of worthwhile activity.
Only five centres will be available to the courts. I may receive advice from more knowledgeable people, but I hope that it will not be possible for magistrates to send young offenders to those centres for periods of at least six months; I hope that such offences will be deemed serious enough to warrant a Crown court hearing.
Are we right in regarding at least Lords amendment No. 15 as a wrecking amendment? I do not think that it is. I am convinced by those who argue that it extends the powers of the courts, and I do not think that we should limit those powers if Lords amendment No. 15 contains additional opportunities. Unless I hear convincing arguments to the contrary, I intend to support Lords amendment No. 15 or an equivalent to it.

Mr. Gunnell: It is welcome to hear positive comment from a Conservative Member. Part of the problem during the debate has been their persistent confusing of local authority children's homes and local authority secure accommodation. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) suggested that a young criminal in York had escaped from local authority secure accommodation; I think that that is most unlikely. That young person was probably in a children's home. As the Home Secretary knows, the regulations governing children's homes,


introduced by the present Government—I think that the latest regulations were introduced in 1990—insist that children cannot be locked up in such homes.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) painted a farcical picture of local authorities. It was, in fact, a serious criticism of the Home Secretary's expenditure. The Home Office is paying for more than 20 of the occupants of a local authority secure home that I know in Leeds, and was involved in the capital expenditure involved in its creation; it would not be paying some £70,000 a year per child for the accommodation unless it was effective. In Committee, the Minister of State said that he had visited that facility in Leeds and accepted that it was doing a good job. Leeds also runs the "bed bureau" dealing with local authority secure accommodation throughout the country, and knows about the nationally available facilities.
Lords amendment No. 15 puts the point very clearly. Why is the Home Secretary not prepared to allow choice? The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) said that judges and magistrates did not like the proposal, but that is nonsense: it will allow them 'to choose, the accommodation that they consider suited to the individuals with whom they deal, knowing their offences and background and how far they live from the five available centres.
Why does the Home Secretary say that magistrates and judges should not have the power to decide? In my view, there are only two possible answers, one of which was given at the outset by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Either the Home Secretary does not trust magistrates to make the right decision, or he believes that, if they have the powers to make that decision, there will not be enough clients for his centres. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested, he needs to bolster the numbers.
5.45 pm
We must eliminate the notion that local authorities provide accommodation that is not secure, and houses a multiplicity of types of children. As the Home Secretary knows, to enter secure accommodation young people must have committed offences for which they would receive a 14-year custodial sentence: the offences must be very serious. The children in secure accommodation in Leeds have indeed committed grave offences—offences as grave as murder in some cases. They are in secure accommodation because society and the local authority rightly believe that they need to be there, and that the public need to be protected from them.
I do not think it right to categorise local authority secure accommodation as collecting all sorts of young people, and to suggest that those entering it are likely to corrupt or be corrupted by those already there. I support the amendments because I believe that the "colleges of crime" argument is a strong one, and that we are creating another cause of crime when we put together 40 serious juvenile offenders in care that is at the very least untried, because we have not tried privatising accommodation for children of that age who have committed such offences. I believe that we should give magistrates the choice, and I believe that the Home Secretary's real reason for not wanting to give them that choice is less that he does not

trust them than that he does not think that the new centres will get off the ground unless a clientele is collected fairly promptly.
We should be concerned not just with the period of accommodation, but with rehabilitation and the prevention of persistent reoffending. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) gave the statistics—figures of 80 per cent. and 55 per cent. for two different types of treatment. I feel that we are opting for the type which, so far, has been shown to have the worse record.
If the private sector is to bid not only to provide accommodation and care but to provide aftercare, the position will become extremely difficult. If an offender is given a secure training order, say, in Cornwall and then goes to Oxfordshire—that being the site of the nearest centre—how will the same person in authority be able to provide aftercare back in Cornwall, where I believe the regulations state that the offender would have to be seen just once a month? How will it be possible to provide the level of aftercare needed to integrate the offender back into the community? If he stays distant from his community, the chance of his reoffending will be all the greater.
I feel that the Lords amendment gives us a chance to improve the Bill, and to improve the position for many of the young offenders who will come before the courts. I am very sorry that the Home Secretary seems determined not to let it stand.

Mr. Hawkins: I shall speak very briefly, just to deal with a matter which Opposition Members raised time and again in Committee, and which has now been raised again by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). He suggested that different past treatments for offenders showed differences in reoffending rates, but he was not comparing like with like. Opposition Members repeatedly make that mistake. Often the most serious juvenile offenders, whom I used to prosecute over many years at the Bar, received the most serious sentences. They were precisely the hard-core offenders who would reoffend. One is not comparing like with like because those who commit less serious offences are given supervision orders and are less likely to reoffend.
In order to deal with the most serious juvenile offenders, we need sensible, secure provision. The only Labour Member who seemed to understand that is the only one with real experience over many years at the Bar, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). He recognises that there is no point in sending the most serious young offenders on safari holidays because it simply sends a signal to those offenders that they are being rewarded for their crimes. What about the law-abiding children whose parents cannot afford to send them to Center Pares or on safari holidays? We need secure training centres because while those juveniles are in those centres they are not breaking into old ladies' houses and that is what the public want to see.

Mr. Howard: With permission I should like to respond to the debate.
We knew that we would have to make allowances for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). We knew that he would go to any lengths to curry favour in the elections taking place today. Clearly, his approach is that the best way to perform effectively in those elections is to put as much distance as possible


between the truth and the remarks one makes. That was the principle that he adopted and, for all I know, it may be the most effective technique for election to the shadow Cabinet.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth suggested that the Opposition have always adopted a constructive attitude to these matters. Has he forgotten that in another place the Labour party, led by the noble Lord McIntosh, voted to take out of the Bill the whole of part I which would have deprived the courts of any powers to send young offenders to secure institutions of any sort? The hon. Gentleman responded enthusiastically to an intervention from his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who suggested that there should be scope for a longer period to be spent in a secure training centre. He had no answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), who pointed out that the only amendment from the Labour party in Committee was designed to shorten the time to which people could be sentenced to a secure training centre, not to lengthen it.
The hon. Gentleman behaved disgracefully—there is no other word for it—to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Chairman of the Select Committee, who gave him chapter and verse on how the Committee recommended an agency in addition to the provision of a secure training centre. Without the slightest foundation, he accused my hon. and learned Friend of twisting and turning when my hon. and learned Friend was simply pointing out the truth.
The reality behind the approach of the Labour party and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was revealed when in his closing remarks he said that one of the things that are wrong with the provision is that it assumes that anyone who has committed three offences is a persistent offender. That is the attitude which the Labour party brings to consideration of these matters and it is as well that everyone should know about it.
We heard an interesting speech from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I welcome him, somewhat belatedly, to his new responsibilities. I hope that he holds that position on the Opposition Benches for a long time, particularly if he makes a habit of making the sort of speech that he made today. He attributed to me opinions that I have never expressed, he attacked me for arguments that I have never advanced and he constructed his speech on a basis that did not deal with the points that have been made in the debate. We had splendid speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, who explained precisely why the provisions are necessary and why the amendments from another place should be rejected.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) advanced statistics on reoffending that have been comprehensively answered in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). The hon. Lady attacked our proposals for secure training centres on the basis that they are not the whole solution. I accept that they are not the whole solution and we have never advanced them as the whole solution. However, they are an important part of the solution and we have to have them. We shall have them as soon as possible.
Local authority secure accommodation is no alternative, for the reasons that I gave in my opening speech. It is no use pretending that there is local authority secure accommodation available that would enable the courts to pass sentence the day after Royal Assent. It is not available in sufficient quantities. It is not available largely for the reasons that I put to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong). I gave her the specific example of Labour local authorities in the north-east that have not been providing the accommodation and she had no answer to that point. She replied with the pathetic point about non-payment of the planning fee and I shall deal precisely with that issue.
It is true that we have not paid the planning fee in respect of our application for planning permission for a secure training centre. We have not done so because it would be improper for us to do so before we obtain Royal Assent. Had we sought to disburse moneys before Royal Assent, the Labour party would be the first to complain that we were flouting the will of Parliament, behaving improperly and seeking to spend taxpayers' money without proper permission to do so. That is the simple truth. I would that we could make greater progress, but we must abide by the proprieties, as we always do. That is why the planning fee has not been paid.

Ms Armstrong: rose—

Mr. Howard: I do not know what the hon. Lady is going to say.

Ms Armstrong: Why did the Government apply for planning permission some weeks, if not months, ago and ask the local authority to deal with it immediately?

Mr. Howard: We are not allowed to spend money until we have Royal Assent—[Interruption.] It is extraordinary that the Labour party, which tells us daily of its aspirations to government, is so completely unaware of what the proprieties demand in relation to these matters.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South criticised us for not yet having a secure training centre in being. Of course we do not have such a training centre. That is what the legislation is about. We want the legislation in order to be able to provide secure training centres. That is why we are here.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) was not here at the beginning of the debate. I hope that, had he heard my opening speech, he would have understood why we are not prepared to accept the amendments from another place. We believe that we are dealing with a discrete group of persistent young offenders. We believe that they need a particular remedy that is tailor-made for them. They need a high-calibre regime of training and education, which we intend to provide in our secure training centres. That is why we think that that is the right sentence for the courts to pass on them. That is why we think that the amendments that were passed in another place should be rejected.
For those reasons and for the reasons that I gave in my opening remarks, to which the Labour party has not responded, I invite the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Michael: With the permission of the House, I should like to reply.
The laughter that greeted so many of the Home Secretary's comments showed the ridicule into which he has brought his high office. I suppose that we should be


pleased that the Home Secretary returned the loyalty of the Chairman of the Select Committee. However, he is as inaccurate as the Chairman in the account that he gave of these matters.
I remind the House that a vote against the Lords amendments is a vote to refuse discretion to magistrates and a vote against a commonsense approach to the prevention of reoffending. That is what it is about.

6 pm

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 272.

Division No. 306]
[6.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Congdon, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Conway, Derek


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cran,James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina(S D'by'ire)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ashby, David
Davis, David(Boothferry)


Aspinwall, Jack
Day, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bates, Michael
Dunn, Bob


Batiste, Spencer
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beggs, Roy
Dykes, Hugh


Bellingham, Henry
Egger, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Elletson, Harold


Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Roger(Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Faber, David


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Brandreth, Gyles
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bright, Sir Graham
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Sir Peter


Butcher, John
Gale, Roger


Butler, Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Butterfill, John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Garnier, Edward


Carrington, Matthew
Gill, Christopher


Cash, William
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Churchill, Mr
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Clappison, James
Greenways, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenways, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grylls, Sir Michael





Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heald, Oliver
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Paice, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Horam, John
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Jack, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Richards, Rod


Jenkin, Bernard
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rowe Andrew, (Mid Kent)


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knox, Sir David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Gilles (Pudsey)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Legg, Barry
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lidington, David
Smyth, Rev Martin(Belfast S)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James(W Dorset)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, Sir David
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Marlow, Tony
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Mates, Michael
Sykes, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McCrea, Rev William
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Merchant, Piers
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)






Tracey, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Tredinnick, David
Whitney, Ray


Trend, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Trimble, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trotter, Neville
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilkinson, John


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Willetts, David


Viggers, Peter
Wilshire, David


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walden, George
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Simon Burns




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbett, Robin


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Corston, Jean


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cousins, Jim


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Anderson, Ms Janet
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


(Ros'dale)
Dafis, Cynog


Armstorng, Hilary
Dalyell, Tam


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Darling, Alistair


Banks, Tony(Newham NW)
Davies, Bryan(Oldham C'tral)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Denham, John


Battle, John
Dewar, Donald


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dixon, Don


Beith, Rt Hon A.J.
Dobson, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Donohoe, Brain H.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Berry, Roger
Enright, Derek


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blair, Tony
Evans, John(St Helens N)


Blunkett, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Boateng, Paul
Fatchett, Derek


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, Gorden (Dunfermline E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, N.(N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foulkes, George


Burden, Richard
Fraser, John


Byers, Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Garrett, John


Campbell-Savours, D.N.
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennies
Gerrard, Neil


Cann, Jamie
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Chidgey, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godsiff, Roger


Church, Judith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clelland, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gunnell, John


Coffey, Ann
Hain, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Hall, Mike


Connarty, Michael
Hanson, David


Cock, Frank (Stockton N)
Hardy, Peter


Cock, Robin (Livingston)
Harman, Ms Harriet





Harvey, Nick
Morley, Elliot


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon A.(Wy'nshawe)


Heppell, John
Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hinchliffe, David
Mudie, George


Hodge, Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Paul


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hood, Jimmy
O'Neill, Martin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, William


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoyle, Doug
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter L.


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Ingram, Adam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Janner, Greville
Prescott, John


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mofln)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Randall, Stuart


Jowell, Tessa
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan
Redmond, Martin


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rendel, David


Khabra, Piara S.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kirkwood, Archy
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry
Rooker, Jeff


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rooney, Terry


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Salmond, Alex


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sedgemore, Brian


Loyden, Eddie
Sheerman, Barry


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Short, Clare


Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maddock, Diana
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mahon, Alice
Snape, Peter


Mandelson, Peter
Soley, clive


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Stevenson, George


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Stott, Roger


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McAllion, John
Straw, Jack


McAvoy, Thomas
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McFall, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McKelvey, William
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McLeish, Henry
Timms, Stephen


McMaster, Gordon
Tipping, Paddy


McNamara, Kevin
Turner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Tyler, Paul


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Meale, Alan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michael, Alun
Wallace, James


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Miller, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Watson, Mike


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Andrew


Morgan, Rhodri
Wicks, Malcolm






Wigley, Dafydd
Wray, Jimmy


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Wright, Dr Tony


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Worthington, Tony
Mr. John Spellar

Question accordingly agreed to.

Government motions to disagree agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 32

EFFECT OF ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO MENTION FACTS WHEN QUESTIONED OR CHARGED

Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 21, line 12, after ("questioned") insert ("under caution")

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 1, after 'caution', insert—
',and after being given the opportunity to be legally represented,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): 'With this, it will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 1, after 'caution', insert—
'and after being informed that he has a right to legal advice'.
Lords amendment No. 299.

Mr. Michael: The Lords amendment would add the words "under caution" and would provide the protection that, before comment can be made on silence, the suspect should have been cautioned.
Our amendments would ensure that the suspect was given the opportunity to be legally represented or, at the minimum, informed that he has the right to legal advice.
The reason for our amendments is very simple. The sophisticated crook will be aware of his rights, will insist on being legally advised and represented, and will not be caught out by these provisions. Without the protection of legal advice, as proposed in our amendment, the vulnerable and the innocent will be put at risk.
We can quote excellent authority for our proposal, because we share the view expressed by the Royal Commission on criminal justice, which said:
The majority of us believe that the possibility of an increase in convictions of the guilty is outweighed by the risk that the extra pressure on suspects to talk in the police station, and the adverse inferences invited if they do not may result in more convictions of the innocent.
We have already gone far further than the royal commission envisaged, because the Bill would allow comment on things that were said long before a suspect reached the police station. Given the strong views of the royal commission, our amendment is the minimum acceptable to protect the innocent.
The royal commission went on to say that it believed that it would be not the professional criminal who would be most likely to be affected by the change proposed in the Bill but
the less experienced and more vulnerable suspects against whom the threat of adverse comment would be likely to be more damaging.
In discussions on the general issue of the right to silence, we proposed an alternative that would have more accurately hit the target that the Government said they

were after—the possibility of ambush defences—at an early stage. I shall not reopen that question, because we are dealing with a very narrow point, which is to ensure that people receive the necessary protection under the Government's proposals.
Having failed to persuade the Government to change their mind, we have consistently sought to add safeguards to the Bill to ensure that the protection provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applies. It is odd that the House should swing from trying to build in protection for the innocent to the very opposite—providing no protection at all.
In view of the Government's chosen direction, we seek to ensure that the protection offered by the previous legislation applies, especially in respect of vulnerable and innocent people. We believe that the provisions should operate only when the accused is in the police station, and that he should have access to properly qualified legal advice.
When we discussed the issue on Report, the Home Secretary felt that no additional safeguards were needed. Indeed, he said:
I disagree with the proposition that inferences should be restricted to the period after cautioning"—[Official Report, 13 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 281.]
However, that is the point that the Government were forced to concede in another place, and it is the import of the amendment that we are discussing.
The Minister must consider carefully the vulnerable nature of many people accused of offences. It is right that someone who is guilty should be convicted even if he is of lower than average intelligence or ability, but it is also right that we should take account of his circumstances and ensure that there are appropriate protections.
The problem was highlighted in a recent study of 160 suspects held at two police stations. Work prepared for the Royal Commission on criminal justice revealed that their mean IQ was 82—well below the average of 100—and that one in three scored 75 or below, equivalent to that of the bottom 5 per cent. of the population. My point is that such issues have been carefully considered by a royal commission; a large sum of public money was spent on ensuring that research informed the considerations of the royal commission.
The Government have taken policy decisions—what the House agreed before the Bill went to another place—but, despite those decisions, it remains appropriate for the Government to consider protection for the vulnerable. For that reason, I urge the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) to accept our amendments.
We are proposing that the suspect should have been given the opportunity to be legally represented before inferences could be used. The suspect may not wish to exercise his right, but he should at least have the opportunity to seek legal help and to know that that opportunity is his as a right. As I said, the sophisticated crook—the person who has been involved in offences before—will have that knowledge in any event. The people at risk will be the unsophisticated and, indeed, the innocent.
The protection we seek is all the more necessary because it is likely that many suspects will not have understood the new caution. Is that surprising, as it is. hardly an object lesson in clarity? We must remember that


we are dealing with not only guilty but innocent people; and who, at a time of stress, will understand the convoluted wording of a caution which will very often be read to them speedily? It reads:
You do not have to say anything, but if you do not mention now something which you may later use in your defence, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you. A record will be made of anything you say and may be given in evidence if you are brought to trial.
Let us consider the innocent, vulnerable person, as distinct from the sophisticated crook. The innocent, vulnerable person—indeed, the innocent person of some intelligence—may find it difficult to understand what he is being told. The sophisticated crook will not need to understand the caution, because he will have already worked out what he is going to do. We should be under no illusion that the sophisticated crook is a reason for refusing the amendment.
The codes of practice under PACE currently require the police to inform a person of his right to legal advice after he arrives at a police station. People questioned before they arrive are in danger of their silence being used against them without their having been informed of their right to legal advice. In addition, the Bill as drafted would mean that if the police failed to inform a person of his right to legal advice once he or she had arrived at the police station, the court could still take into account the person's silence despite the breach of the codes of practice.
Our amendments, therefore, provide the innocent suspect with the safeguards necessary to ensure that he is not convicted and which the sophisticated suspect will always have. I commend them to the House as a means of providing a protection only where a protection is sorely needed, not as a means of taking us back to earlier arguments. I hope that the Minister will accept them.

Sir Michael Grylls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that, because of a demonstration in Parliament square, people cannot leave the Norman Shaw building and that, equally important, internal mail cannot be brought here. Surely it cannot be right that such a demonstration should be allowed to interfere with the proper workings of Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms to make inquiries.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Before deciding to move amendments Nos. 30 and 299 in another place, the Government reflected carefully on what was said in a full debate in Committee in another place on safeguards and on the provision dealing with inferences drawn from silence. The debate focused especially on clause 32, which allows inferences to be drawn from the failure to mention a fact on which the defendant later relies for his defence and which he could reasonably have been expected to mention when questioned.
A number of opinions were expressed, and the Government agreed that it should be made a condition for the drawing of inferences that a person had been warned about the possible consequences of his silence. Lord

amendment No. 30 amends the Bill accordingly. Amendment No. 299 would make corresponding changes to Northern Ireland legislation.
Regrettably, I must advise the House to reject the two amendments to Lords amendment No. 30. I have already advised the House to agree to the Lords amendment as it stands, and I have explained what the Lords amendment is and is not intended to do. Clause 32 provides that, when a defendant puts an explanation before the court which he has not previously mentioned to the police, the court can draw proper inferences from that fact.
It is based on the proposition that if an innocent person has an explanation to give, he can usually be expected to give it at the first reasonable opportunity, not store it up for use when the proceedings have developed as far as a trial. If an explanation is withheld at the earlier stage but offered at the trial, we believe that the courts should have the opportunity, which is at present denied them, to consider all the circumstances and to draw sensible conclusions.
It is common ground between the two Houses, and between the Government and the Opposition, that that process must be subject to some safeguards. The only question is how far the safeguards should extend and how far they can reasonably extend without depriving the clause of its effectiveness. The issue has been extensively discussed in both Houses.
In this House, explanations were given by the Government of the safeguards already inherent in clause 32 as drafted, in the procedures for which provision is made in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and in the codes of practice issued under it. The House decided that clause 32 should be added to the Bill in its original form and a number of amendments, including some similar in effect to those now proposed by the Opposition, were defeated.
The debate on safeguards was naturally renewed in another place and, again, a menu of comments and suggestions was made. Even among those who believe that some amendment was needed, there was no unanimity about what form it should take. The Government and the House of Lords itself had a choice to make—should any amendment be made and, if so, what route should it follow?
Eventually, however, a clear decision was reached, and it is expressed in Lords amendment No. 30. That decision was to include a requirement that a person must have been a suspect under caution but not to include further requirements similar to those now proposed by the Opposition. This House's earlier decision not to include such amendments was a deliberate decision, not a mere oversight.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I should be grateful if the Minister would explain how the new provision will apply to questioning by someone who is not a policeman. As the Minister will be aware, the clause covers questioning not only by the police but by other people, such as store detectives and possibly private security staff. Will he explain how a caution will work in such cases?

Mr. Maclean: The amendment that we are accepting from the House of Lords, which I am recommending, applies to all the categories of people specified in the Bill and in earlier legislation. We do not seek to change the


categories of people who, whether they be in Customs and Excise or in private security, may at times question suspects.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) explained why, even at this late stage, he favours the Opposition amendments—or at least, he explained why he favours one of them. I shall explain briefly why I advise the House to reject both the Opposition amendments. The essential question at issue is when the possible drawing of inferences should start.
The scheme of clause 32 is to enable the court to inquire into and to draw conclusions from any contrast between what a defendant says to the court and what he said or did not say earlier. The question is: how much earlier? In the form in which clause 32 left the House for another place, the answer was: from the first moment when a person was questioned by the police. If we add Lords amendment No. 30, as I advise the House to do, the answer will be: when a person is clearly being treated as a suspect and has been given due warning.
However, if we took one of the Opposition's amendments, in effect the answer would become: when the suspect is formally interviewed at a police station, having had an opportunity to talk things over with a lawyer. I must advise the House that I consider that unnecessarily restrictive. In some situations, it could prevent clause 32 from having the desirable and sensible effect of enabling the courts to look at all the circumstances.
In some situations, what a suspect says or does not say to the police immediately after being cautioned will be a good deal more telling than what he says or does not say after receiving legal advice. It is not only the Government who believe that amendments such as those urged by the Opposition would be too restrictive. The various options were carefully considered in the debate in another place, and Lords amendment No. 30, although moved by the Government, was designed to give effect to points put during that debate by the Lord Chief Justice.
On 23 May, the Lord Chief Justice said in the House of Lords:
As we have already heard, there are some … who would limit the comment on silence under that clause"—
that is, clause 32—
to the police station, where all the safeguards of the defence lawyer being present and tape recording are in place. That is a somewhat too limiting restriction.
As I have suggested, there are cases in which silence at or near the scene of the crime is particularly important."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 23 May 1994; Vol. 555, c. 523.]
I emphasise the Lord Chief Justice's words:
at or near the scene of the crime".
That was the issue at stake when the Lords discussed the amendments before them, and that is the issue at stake today.
I advise the House to accept the Government's view, shared by the Lord Chief Justice and others in another place, that there is no injustice in allowing inferences to be drawn from an exchange that took place at or near the scene of the crime, provided that the person is on notice that he is a suspect, and that the circumstances were such that he could reasonably have been expected to offer his explanation at the time.

Mr. George Walden: I do not claim to be a great expert on the subject, as many of my colleagues

are, but like many other people in this country I have a certain instinctive reservation when I hear about the right to silence being abolished—that is how the measure has been described—because we all think that a fundamental liberty is somehow at stake. Then we look into the matter more closely, and discover that it relates to inferences being drawn, and so on. So we are taken even further into the subject.
I have listened carefully to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and to my hon. Friend the Minister. For non-experts, the matter boils down to the simple fact that we have all had drawn to our attention an increasing wave of petty crime—at least, I assume that most hon. Members have had that experience. My constituency, notably its chief town, Buckingham, is no exception.
Having listened to the Opposition spokesman and to the Minister, I approach the problem from the point of view of my local police station, where I say to the police, "What shall we do about the rising tide?" I do not want to exaggerate, because that does not help anyone, but there is a rising tide of petty crime in my constituency, as in many others. My local police give me frightening examples showing how their hands are tied, or at least one hand is tied behind their backs, when they try to arrest the people responsible and to achieve convictions.
I believe that the Opposition previously attempted to restrict the measure so that it did not affect magistrates courts, but that that amendment has now been dropped. That leads me be a little suspicious of their position on the subject. I start from the premise, not that there is a huge serious crime wave in my constituency—there is not—but that there is a wave of petty delinquency. The local police often know who is responsible, but they can do little about it, often for reasons connected with the right to silence.

Mr. Michael: It is only fair to clarify the situation. We proposed adopting the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, as an alternative to the Government's approach. That would have meant a pre-trial review, which would have enabled comment to be made on issues that had not yet been raised.
The Government did not accept that, and since then we have sought to build in protections to ensure that, in attempting to catch the guilty and sophisticated—a target at which we all wish to aim—we do not accidentally catch the innocent and vulnerable. It was in order to manage that balance that we tabled the amendment, and that is the narrow point with which we are concerned.

Mr. Walden: I take note of that. We must all be frank about the fact that there have recently been serious miscarriages of justice in our country. So what the hon. Gentleman says about striking a balance is uppermost in my mind when discussing the narrow measure before us.
What swings me in favour of the Government is the fear that, if we try to refine the matter too much, we shall come down on the side of the possibly—I stress the word "possibly"—guilty. As I keep saying, I have no expert knowledge of the higher legal arguments, but I know about the local arguments.
Common sense must guide some of us in such discussions. Last week, I was faced with a deputation of 12 local shopkeepers thinking of leaving the town of Buckingham because of a combination of low sales—I


cannot blame those on anyone now in the Chamber—and the physical insecurity of their premises. When that happens, one begins to think that things are getting a little out of hand.
When one talks to the police, one finds that perhaps they could do something more effective about the problems if their hand were strengthened a little. Without being sentimental, I must say that I do not think that the police I know in Buckingham would take undue advantage of the legislation to browbeat supposed offenders.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth read out the caution. Certainly the speed at which he read it could be slightly confusing for someone in the emotion of the moment. On the other hand, the caution is couched in fairly simple English, and one would hope that the legal officers concerned would read it plainly and slowly. I fail to see quite how the sense of that caution could be conveyed in more simple language.
The Government are right to resist the amendment—not because the Opposition are in any way trying to undermine the intention of the Government to ensure that criminals are brought to book and so on, because that is a slightly simplistic debate, but because, as the Minister said, there is a risk that, if we lean a little too far in the wrong direction, we could prevent this important amendment to the law from having its full effect.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am very disappointed that the Government are insisting on proceeding with changing the right of silence. If the Government had merely insisted that people could not produce ambush defences when a case had gone to court, I would not complain at all. But if the Government are to change the rights of someone before a case reaches trial, they must demonstrate overwhelmingly that there is a need to do so.
Quite frequently I hear evidence from police officers alleging that guilty people get off and that more guilty people get off than innocent people are wrongly convicted. But it is very difficult to demonstrate that. I understand why police officers feel like that. When they are absolutely convinced that they have got the right person and the jury finds against them, they are bitter and frustrated because professionally they have failed. It therefore makes a substantial impact on them. Obviously, they are not conscious of the miscarriages of justice in the other direction, so they have tended, over a period of time, to suggest that there is a major problem. I do not see a major problem and the way in which the Government are attempting to tackle the issue is unfortunate.
If we are to change the law, we must provide the protection, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, for people who may be described as vulnerable. I do not think that the Minister has grasped what often happens to my constituents. They are not well-organised people. They do not have a diary secretary who keeps a list of where they should be and organises their lives. Their lives are fairly disorganised. Their memories of what happened a week or a fortnight ago are not exact and precise, and if they are in a difficult situation, they are not likely to come up with a sensible and rational explanation. They are not

likely to be able to balance one defence against another and they may end up by weakening their genuine defence because their first reactions are ill-considered.

Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is making his argument in favour of the Opposition amendments in terms relating to the vulnerability of particular suspects. Does he agree that the legislation merely enables a court to draw inferences from silence, but only those inferences which are proper? The circumstances in which the people being questioned—the accused—find themselves and the vulnerability of those persons would be highly relevant to what is considered a proper inference. So the hon. Gentleman is advancing matters that are already adequately provided for in the proposed legislation.

Mr. Bennett: I do not think that they are adequately provided for in the proposed legislation. If one considers certain circumstances—I was about to describe some—such as a person's response with hindsight, in many cases, one wonders why on earth that person did not give the same explanation initially. However, consider, for instance, someone who has just been chased by an alsatian dog. The alsatian grabs the person by the leg. The police officer who is handling the dog comes over and brings the dog off. There is a fair chance that, under the present proposals, the caution will be administered at that point. The first question that the police officer will ask is what the person was doing on that piece of land or what he was doing behind the building which the police officer assumes someone has just burgled and is running away from.
Afterwards, I would have thought that if it was drawn to the attention of a jury that the individual answered "I do not know", or made some other relatively irrational comment, it would be difficult to convince them that the person's genuine reason for being there was correct. If the reason was not put forward at the first possible opportunity, it would become an argument in the court. To get across to a jury that under the stress of just having been chased by an alsatian dog, somebody would not react—

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman does not trust juries.

Mr. Bennett: It is not that I do not trust juries. I think that it is difficult to put the jury into that frame of mind. Juries are supposed to be comprised of average citizens who have experienced things, but not many jurymen will have been chased by an alsatian dog and at that point had to produce rational explanations.
6.45 pm
There is the same argument when considering the whole matter of putting forward an alibi. Many of my constituents, if asked where they were on a particular occasion, would find it extremely difficult to react at that moment. Again, I suggest that many people on a jury would find it surprising, if a substantial crime was committed at a particular time, that someone could not at that immediate instant put forward their alibi. In fact, it may take quite a time for that individual to work out the circumstances. I do not agree that there is evidence of the change being necessary.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I confess to being rather ignorant about much criminal procedure. However,


as I understand the right to silence, it is not merely exercised at the point of caution. It is persisted with, right up until the last possible moment and to that degree. It seems that most juries who were confronted with somebody who at the time said, "I would rather not say anything, but when I have had time to collect my wits and stop panting from being pursued by the alsatian, I will tell you as much as I can", would think that that person was in a very different position.

Mr. Bennett: As I said at the beginning of my speech, as far as I understand it, there is no difference between the two parties in saying that before a matter comes to court, it is reasonable that the defence should put forward its case. In other words, we are taking away any ambush that the defence can produce of an alibi, which it is difficult at that stage for the prosecution to check. There did not seem to be any disagreement over that. The problem arose over at what stage the inference may be drawn. The Opposition have been suggesting that as long as someone has put forward his defence at some pre-trial conference, it would be sensible to draw the line there, whereas the Government have been insisting on moving it further and further forward so that the right to silence is removed at a very early stage. That seems to be where the disagreement lies.
My final administrative point is that one of the problems for the police is that we have continually changed the rules. It is all right for us legislators to imagine what will happen, but the police officer on the beat has to turn it into something practical. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth suggested, the proposed caution does not seem to be practical. One fears that the entire procedure will not be especially practical. It will give the police officers extra problems in administering the procedure and, therefore, it will not help us to catch more criminals. The fundamental problem is that we do not catch enough people—it is not that those people who are brought before the courts are let off. If the Government had addressed the problem of ensuring that more people were caught rather than worrying too much about the legal processes after they are caught, we would have done a lot better.

Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has not made a good case. Is not he aware that, frequently, the problem is not that of catching the criminal, but of bringing that criminal to retribution when he is in court and is, in fact, guilty?
I want to make two brief points. A very strong case was made for a change in the law a few months ago when a man and a woman who without any question had murdered their child walked free from the court because of the right of silence. That was only the latest of many similar cases and there was much publicity about that case at the time.
We should not concern ourselves so much about the wild alsatian. The points made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish were more a red herring or a wild goose chase. It is absurd to suppose that a jury in a British court of law could not differentiate when given the right to
draw such inferences from the failure
to speak up—
as appear proper.
We are concerned about an essential change in the law. Justice is about not only catching criminals, but protecting the public from criminals and ensuring that criminals receive their just desserts.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that the parents went free totally because of the right of silence. It has more to do with the fact that if the evidence is consistent with one as with another, the burden of proof has not been discharged and it is not possible to say which of the two parents is responsible for the killing. That is another problem.
As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, I support the Government's proposals on the right of silence. I have advocated the removal of the right of silence for the many years that I have been a Member of this place because I wanted tape-recorded interviews. My colleagues will be aware, as I have said so on many occasions, that I am unhappy with allowing evidence to be adduced of any confession on the way to the police station unless it has been tape recorded.
Having said that, I am not completely happy with the Government's refusal to accept the Opposition's proposals. I am unhappy about having to agree, even vaguely, with anything that the Opposition suggest on law and order, for reasons that I have given on many occasions.
By excluding the right to legal advice, we are giving a suspect the opportunity to say, "I didn't explain what I was doing because, quite frankly, I was scared and I wanted a solicitor to be there to ensure that when I explained it to the police, they got it right rather than wrong." The effect of that would be that a point would be made to the jury which might make the jury say, "Well, we are not happy about this."
As the object of the exercise is to ensure that more of the guilty people are convicted, that would be better achieved by removing an excuse that an accused person will, after this, be able to use by saying, "I was scared and I needed someone to be there." That is an impressive jury point.
However, I find myself driven to the conclusion that it is inevitable that we make this kind of exclusion, although I say that reluctantly, because of the nature of the change that we are making to the right of silence and the ability to make a comment. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). It is up to the jury. I simply want my hon. Friends to realise that it will not help us to obtain more convictions of the guilty.

Mr. Beith: I have reflected on the situation described by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). Might not it be just as likely that an accused person will say, "I didn't reveal my explanation at the time because I didn't know what it would mean if I admitted to another crime, perhaps a lesser crime than the one that I was involved in; I certainly didn't want to say anything about that without legal advice"? The point that would then be made to the jury is that they should not believe anything that man says because he must clearly have other convictions.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: That raises other problems and the right hon. Gentleman's comments do not meet the point that I am making. I am making a much simpler point and I need not repeat what I have just said. I am unhappy


about this, but I understand that it is inevitable. Therefore, I reluctantly go along with the Government's response to the Opposition's suggestion.
I should like clarification on two points. First, speaking frankly and openly, we have been worried by the fact that too often solicitors may have told accused people to say nothing when, on many occasions, what they may have said could have been helpful to the defence. I wonder whether the problem of what solicitors shall say, bearing in mind the new caution, has been sorted out by the Law Society and its ethical committee. How far have those considerations progressed with the Law Society? Is it changing its rules and ethical obligations to conform with the changes proposed in the Bill?
Secondly, regardless of how the caution works in Northern Ireland, no one can deny that it is quite convoluted. It can be simplified. I wonder whether the proposed caution is set in stone or whether it is open to wider consideration which might produce a shorter and simpler version. Modesty forbids me from suggesting one now, but I will quietly, perhaps in a letter, propose alternatives to my hon. Friend the Minister, and I hope that others will do likewise. It is obviously sensible that we should have as simple and as straightforward a caution as possible, particularly if we are not going to allow legal representation in certain circumstances.

Mr. Peter Hardy: In this brief intervention I want to refer to a constituency case which may be interpreted as suggesting that the right of silence should be expunged, but which I hope will convince the House that it is not that which should attract attention, but the need for common sense in the legal process.
Not very long ago, a man was caught breaking into the house of a constituent of mine. The police responded to a call with enormous speed and the man was caught red-handed burgling my constituent's home. When the police accosted him, he said "I am exercising my right of silence." When the papers went to the public prosecution office, it decided that it could not prosecute because that man was exercising the right of silence. The Minister may recall that I had correspondence with the Home Office on the matter which led, I believe, to its being reviewed.
It is not the existence of the right of silence that was wrong. What was wrong was that the court was denied the opportunity to hear that charge and perhaps ensure that the criminal who was sheltering behind the right of silence secured a rather tougher sentence for wasting public time and causing mayhem than was the case.
I suggest that the Minister should advise the Crown Prosecution Service to allow the court to have the opportunity to exercise its judgment rather than remove a freedom which may be of considerable historic importance.
Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 286.

Division No. 307]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham


Adams, Mrs Irene
Alton, David


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)





Armstrong, Hilary
Foulkes, George


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fyfe, Maria


Ashton, Joe
Galloway, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gapes, Mike


Barnes, Harry
Garrett, John


Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce


Battle, John
Gerrard, Neil


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bell, Stuart
Godsiff, Roger


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bennett, Andrew F.
Graham, Thomas


Benton, Joe
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Berry, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Betts, Clive
Grocott, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Gunnell, John


Blunkett, David
Hain, Peter


Boateng, Paul
Hall, Mike


Boyes, Roland
Hanson, David


Bradley, Keith
Hardy, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Harvey, Nick


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Henderson, Doug


Burden, Richard
Heppell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hodge, Margaret


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoey, Kate


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Cann, Jamie
Hood, Jimmy


Chidgey, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Church, Judith
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clapham, Michael
Hoyle, Doug


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Hutton, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Illsley, Eric


Coffey, Ann
Ingram, Adam


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Janner, Greville


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jowell, Tessa


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Keen, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davidson, Ian
Khabra, Piara S.


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Denham, John
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dixon, Don
Litherland, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eagle, Ms Angela
Loyden, Eddie


Eastham, Ken
Lynne, Ms Liz


Enright, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Etherington, Bill
Mackinlay, Andrew


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maclennan, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
MacShane, Denis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Madden, Max


Fisher, Mark
Maddock, Diana


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mandelson, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marek, Dr John






Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Rogers, Allan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Rooker, Jeff


Martlew, Eric
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCartney, Ian
Salmond, Alex


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McKelvey, William
Sheerman, Barry


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McMaster, Gordon
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Clare


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Snape, Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Soley, Clive


Milburn, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Miller, Andrew
Spellar, John


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stevenson, George


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mudie, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Murphy, Paul
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Turner Dennis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tyler, Paul


Olner, William
Vaz, Keith


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Parry, Robert
Wallace, James


Patchett, Terry
Walley, Joan


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pickthall, Colin
Wareing, Robert N


Pike, Peter L.
Watson, Mike


Pope, Greg
Welsh, Andrew


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wigley, Dafydd


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Purchase, Ken
Wise, Audrey


Radice, Giles
Worthington, Tony


Randall, Stuart
Wray, Jimmy


Raynsford, Nick
Wright, Dr Tony


Redmond, Martin



Reid, Dr John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rendel, David
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Mr. John Cummings.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Batiste, Spencer


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bellingham, Henry


Alexander, Richard
Bendall, Vivian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Body, Sir Richard


Ancram, Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Atkins, Robert
Bowis, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bright, Sir Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Bates, Michael
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)





Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Butcher, John
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Peter
Heald, Oliver


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Horam, John


Carttiss, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chapman, Sydney
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clappison, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hunter, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Congdon, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Conway, Derek
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Davies, Quentin (Starnford)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Knox, Sir David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dover, Den
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan, Alan
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dunn, Bob
Legg, Barry


Durant, Sir Anthony
Leigh, Edward


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Eggar, Tim
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Elletson, Harold
Lidington, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fishburn, Dudley
MacKay, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Maclean, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malone, Gerald


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Marland, Paul


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marlow, Tony


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mates, Michael


French, Douglas
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Fry, Sir Peter
McCrea, Rev William


Gardiner, Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gill, Christopher
Merchant, Piers


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mills, Iain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)






Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Norris, Steve
Steen, Anthony


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Stephen, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stern, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Stewart, Allan


Page, Richard
Streeter, Gary


Paice, James
Sweeney, Walter


Paisley, Rev Ian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Thomason, Roy


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thurnham, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bext'yh'th)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Richards, Rod
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Trend, Michael


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Trimble, David


Robathan, Andrew
Trotter, Neville


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Viggers, Peter


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sackville, Tom
Waller, Gary


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waterson, Nigel


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Shersby, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Nicholas
Willetts, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Wilshire, David


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)



Spring, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Mr. Timothy Wood

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New clause

Child testimony

Lords amendment: No. 43, after clause 45, to insert the following new clause—Video recordings of testimony from child witnesses—
In section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in section 32A(5)(b) the word "adequately" shall be inserted after the words "dealt with".")

Read a Second time.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, leave out from 'section 32A(5)(b)' to the end of line 4 and insert—
'the words ", in the opinion of the court, has been dealt with in his recorded testimony" shall be omitted and the words "has been dealt with in his recorded testimony unless the judge grants leave,

such leave to be granted only where he is of the opinion that an examination in chief is necessary to clarify matters not adequately dealt with in the witness's recorded testimony, or that an examination in chief would be in the best interests of the child" shall be inserted in their place.'.
In moving the amendment, which deals with the video recording of the testimony of child witnesses, I wish to thank the NSPCC, of which I am a trustee, for doing most of the work in researching the need for such an amendment.
Section 54 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 added a new section 32A to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 after section 32, which deals with the giving of evidence through television links. Section 32A(5) has been amended by the other place during the passage of the Bill by the insertion of the word "adequately", so that it now reads:
Where a video recording of the testimony from a child witness is admitted in evidence, the child witness shall be called by the party who tendered it in evidence and that the witness shall not be examined in chief on any matter which in the opinion of the court has been dealt with adequately in the recorded testimony.
The original purpose of the provision when it was inserted into the 1991 Act was to protect the child witness from having to give an oral examination in chief which would then be scrutinised and compared with the recorded testimony, leading to cross-examination of the child on trivial differences between the oral and recorded testimony. The legislation prevented an oral examination in chief and there would, therefore, be no second telling of the child's story which could be microscopically compared with the video recording.
The addition of the word "adequately" has dealt with one previous difficulty with the legislation as it stood. As a result, where a taped interview is flawed because issues have not been properly brought out, or because some issues have been missed out altogether, the prosecutor can now seek to clarify those matters so that relevant evidence is no longer prevented from coming before the court. However, the provision still prevents the prosecution from refreshing the child's memory or giving the child witness an opportunity to warm up before cross-examination through a succinct examination in chief.
The only alternative is for the child to view the taped interview. For a young child to watch a long interview on video is, at best, a tedious experience; at worst, the child may refuse to watch it. The child witness, therefore, faces a hostile cross-examination which leaves him thinking that the whole process is pointless as no one believes him. The amendment would allow a judge to grant leave, having regard only to the welfare of the child, for the child to be examined in chief, even though matters have been adequately dealt with in the recorded testimony.
The NSPCC tells me that six judges support reforms of the legislation. Mr. Justice Kay wrote to the Home Secretary on 6 July 1994 about a trial in Swansea involving a paedophile ring. His letter states:
My concern as to Section 32A(5) is limited to the effect that it had on the children. The procedure meant that the child saw me briefly on their monitor at the start of each session and thereafter they saw counsel for the defence who was cross-examining, but no-one else. Under the Act, since it was not suggested by the prosecution that matters had not been dealt with either adequately or at all in the video, I had no power to allow any questions by the prosecution before this process began.
The children were thus confronted for days at a time by hostile counsel putting questions to them, as they were obliged to do on their instructions, that almost every word they uttered was untrue.


They saw no other person in court and had no opportunity to see that there were others present who did not share the views apparently being expressed in the court.
As the process continued, the children became more and more frustrated. Some declined to answer questions making it clear that they saw no point in doing so if everyone doubted every word they said.
I am sure that a number of lessons need to be learned from the Swansea trial. One that seems to me obvious is that the children would have found the giving of evidence far less of an ordeal if before they were subjected to cross-examination they had had the opportunity to answer a few questions from prosecuting counsel who would have appeared to them to be accepting their answers and not challenging them.
I am totally against any idea that the prosecution should be given a free range to ask questions in addition to the video and that the time a child spends in the witness box should in any way be prolonged. I am equally firmly convinced that some questions from a friendly counsel would be beneficial to the child in many cases. I urge that further consideration be given to this aspect of the matter and that the experience of those witnessing the consequences for children of this provision should be drawn upon.
There can be no doubt that a court process that intimidates children carries the risk that relevant evidence will not come before the court. The amendment has the safeguard of judicial discretion to ensure that it will be used only in a small number of cases in which the child's welfare calls for it. I cannot pretend that the amendment will solve the problems that confront children in giving evidence in court.
I strongly support Lords amendment No. 43, but I and many other people believe that the further amendment will help to relieve the strain on children and to prevent even the strongest case of abuse collapsing in the courts.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I wish to add my anxieties to those that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I declare an interest as an honourary consultant to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children on law and policy matters.
The Minister knows that I introduced an amendment, couched in not dissimilar terms, in Committee. I recall his remarks at that time, but I think that he and the Government have been overtaken by events. The Government were then asking for clear evidence that the operation of section 32 was causing the difficulties to which the hon. Lady has referred.
The NSPCC provided that evidence. Evidence has been provided by judges, who communicated with Members of the House of Lords. Additionally, the powerful and, in my view, exceptional letter was written by Mr. Justice Kay following the case in Swansea. In my experience, it is extraordinary for the Home Secretary to have received such a detailed letter, outlining the anxieties of a judge about the operation of that section.
It is important to understand what the judge was complaining about. He was dealing with a situation in which a child was giving evidence by way of the video link. Therefore, the only person whom the child saw throughout the time of giving evidence—let us remember that one of the children gave evidence for a full week—was the defending counsel, who challenged every word that the child said. The judge argued that a more balanced view would have been given in the interests of the child if a discretion had been available to the judge along the lines that the hon. Lady proposes in amendment (a).
When I mentioned the matter in Committee, the Government's view was that there was not really a problem. It has now been made clear that, in many instances, children suffer as a result of the interpretation of that section. We have the evidence of that not simply from the NSPCC, which is active in that sector, but from judges.
I well recognise that the Government would wish to have properly researched information on which to act, but the Government must on occasions respond to the requests of the judiciary, based on their practical difficulties in operating that enactment. There is not a jot of difference between the intentions of the Government and those of the Opposition in relation to the matter. Surely everyone in the House wants the courts to be as user-friendly for children as possible. That is the reason why the original enactment was passed.
I express my anxieties to my hon. Friend the Minister, and ask whether he will give close attention to the observations that have been made by members of the judiciary, especially in the exceptional letter from Mr. Justice Kay, following his practical experience of the paedophile case in Swansea.

Mr. Beith: Is added my name to amendment (a) because I share the worries that have been expressed, especially in the light of two cases that have occurred in the north-east and the many others throughout the country.
Many parents are worried that when their children have been the subject of abuse—that is not in doubt in the type of case to which I am referring—their evidence is not heard by the court. The secondary consequence is that accused persons may be unable to demonstrate or prove their innocence or be found innocent by the court. Therefore, many parties remain aggrieved at the end of abortive trials and investigations in cases of that type. Unless we can find a satisfactory basis on which children's evidence can be admitted and appropriately considered by the court in cases where there may be, in the nature of the event, a lack of other corroborative evidence, we shall spread that sense of injustice.
The greatest fear is that it will become impossible to bring people to trial for the sexual molestation of young children as long as they can ensure that the event takes place where there is no witness. That is a very worrying state of affairs, which has certainly given anxiety to parents in my constituency and elsewhere.
The issues have been given focus by a case that took place in the Newcastle upon Tyne Crown court: Regina v. Lillie and Reed, and the judgment of Mr. Justice Holland in that case. It is worth giving the House at least a flavour of what led the judge in that case to feel that the children's evidence was inadmissible. The judge spent a long time looking at the video recordings and made many comments on the reasons why he did not feel able to allow the jury to see those video recordings and treat them as evidence.
The very length of the recordings, together with the marked variations in her story, reflect exactly what one would expect of a 4 year old, namely, an inability to give an intelligible account of events, certainly of those events that are relevant to these proceedings.
That incapacity, I emphasise, was no reflection whatsoever upon
the child,


merely a reflection of her age, of the subject matter, of its emotional impact on her and, perhaps above all, of the delay between the events under investigation and the interview itself.
Second, granted that
the child
will be a year older when she would be exposed to cross-examination in any trial in this matter, I am quite satisfied that her capacity will not materially be improved.
All the circumstances that I have mentioned—the very young age of the child, the difficulty in producing a sequential story properly set out, and the fact that time will elapse between the offence and the making of the video and between the making of the video and the cross-examination—are common to cases of that type, and they increase the fear that it will not be possible to proceed in very many such cases.
I give the House another example from the judgment:
She cannot, therefore, appreciate the premise upon which an important line of cross-examination must proceed, namely, the variation between accounts given at differing times in the course of recordings.
Those are hurdles that children of three and four will not be able to overcome. We are therefore contemplating a situation in which it will not be possible to secure convictions of guilty persons in such cases if so rigorous a test is applied in all instances.
Before that judgment was delivered, but after it had been ruled in court that the video evidence would not be admitted in that case, a case went to the Crown Prosecution Service in my constituency in which there were some similarities. It was clear that an offence had occurred, corroborative evidence was lacking and the Crown Prosecution Service had to decide whether it could proceed, and whether the evidence of the video interviews with children involved was a sufficient basis on which to do so.
I wrote to the Attorney-General to express the fear that the Newcastle case might influence that case and others, and that it might lead the Crown Prosecution Service to be extremely cautious. That case did not proceed, and there may be many others in the same situation now.
Therefore, I express the hope that a combination of the wording of the Lords amendment and consideration of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), with the assistance of the NSPCC, might eventually give us a more certain basis of proceeding in cases of that type. Clearly, it will be difficult and a great onus will rest upon the court and the jury in considering whether they can rely on what the child says on the video recording, together with the evidence that an offence occurred—that feature is common to most of these cases—and such other evidence as can be adduced. If the child cannot be heard, the sense of grievance among parents, and the sense of anxiety that it is no longer safe to put a child in a place such as a nursery where such an offence could occur, would be great.
7.30 pm
Common to the two cases to which I have referred is the fact that both relate to public nursery institutions—nursery schools or nursery classes. One can imagine the anxiety of many of those working in the sector if the fear becomes greater and greater, as well as that of parents

who have had the shattering experience of knowing that their child has been the subject of sexual molestation and having no way of bringing that child's evidence to bear.
I hope that the Minister understands and recognises the depth of concern on the issue. I appreciate the difficulties, but we must find some way to ensure that such matters are properly brought to trial and innocence proved when there is no evidence of guilt.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) care deeply about the way in which the criminal justice system treats child victims and witnesses. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has made clear his similar feelings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor spoke deeply and passionately in Committee, but not at great length—thank goodness—on the subject. He has been persistent in hounding the Government to move along the route that he thinks appropriate.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme moved amendment (a) with the eloquence and sincerity that the House has come to expect from her. It is an interesting amendment and I have some sympathy with the points that she and other hon. Members have made, but, for several reasons, I have to advise the House that, although the Government agree with their lordships in amendment No. 43, we cannot at present support its further extension in the hon. Lady's amendment (a).
Both amendments operate on section 32A(5)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That section provides that where a child witness has given evidence in chief by means of a video recording, the prosecution may not then examine the child on any matter dealt with in that recording. The purpose was to protect the child from repeated cross-examination designed to expose discrepancies between the video recording and the child's examination in chief.
It appears that that provision may hinder the prosecution in one respect. Where an issue is mentioned but not fully explored in the video recording, the prosecution is unable to question the child any further about that issue. That may prevent the prosecution from bringing a relevant and important point to the attention of the court. During the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which introduced that provision into the 1988 Act, we took the view that it was sufficient to deal with that danger. We were happy to put the matter beyond doubt by accepting an amendment to this Bill in another place which allows the prosecution to conduct a limited examination of the child to bring out points not adequately dealt with in the video recording.
The hon. Lady's amendment restates in slightly different terms that clarification of the law, but it goes further, in providing that the prosecution may examine the child on any matter dealt with in the video recording, whether adequately or not, if the judge believes that that is in the best interests of the child. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, it would enable the prosecution to refresh the child's memory, or give the child an opportunity to warm up before the cross-examination by the defence. It might make the whole process a less intimidating experience for the child witness, and we are all in favour of that.


The hon. Lady's amendment raises some rather difficult issues. The whole purpose of the provision in the 1988 Act is to prevent a child from having to go through the trauma of repeating the evidence already given in the video recorded interview. If the hon. Lady's amendment were accepted, there is a danger that some prosecuting counsel would use the opportunity to cover the same ground in a different way, in the hope that the child's testimony over the closed-circuit television link would persuade the jury in a way which the video recorded evidence in chief did not. It allows the prosecution a second bite at the cherry. Nothing in the hon. Lady's amendment would prevent the video recorded evidence in chief from becoming an alternative to an examination in chief rather than replacing it, as the 1991 Act envisaged.
We also remain concerned about some practical matters. A capacity for the prosecution to warm up a witness at the beginning of cross-examination may not deal adequately with the problems faced by children who have to undergo very long cross-examination. A few simple, warming-up questions on Monday morning would not be much comfort to a child who is still being cross-examined on Friday afternoon. If the intention is to allow the prosecution to warm up the child on more than one occasion—I am sorry about that expression, but it seems to be the one in common parlance—perhaps at the beginning of a new day in court, or when the defence moves on to questions relating to a second count on the indictment, that would not only prolong the trial but could also prejudice the defendant who might reasonably feel that his counsel's examination was being unfairly hampered and interrupted. If it is simply a matter of putting the child at ease at the start of questioning and preventing bullying or unfair cross-examination, the judge is already well placed to look after the child's interests.
In short, I am not persuaded that the benefits of the hon. Lady's amendment would outweigh the disadvantages that I have described. I should be happy to consider any proposals that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor, who has long since considered those matters, might have for overcoming those difficulties. In any event, further reforms of the law in this sector would be premature at this stage. I am sure that my hon. Friends would advise me that, much as we welcome the opinion of one learned judge, it would not be acceptable to change the law on the basis of one case or one letter from however respected a judge.
The House and the hon. Lady will know that we have commissioned research by Professor Graham Davies of Leicester university into the effectiveness of the children's evidence provisions introduced by the 1991 Act. We expect his report at the end of the year. In the light of that, we will consider afresh what further changes may be needed. Therefore, although I have listened with great

interest and respect to the cases made, I must advise the House to reject amendment (a). However, we can agree with their Lordships on amendment No. 43.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Can such changes as my hon. Friend has in mind as being possible, if the evidence that he receives is of an appropriate kind, be made without legislation?

Mr. Maclean: Primary legislation would most likely be required if we wished to amend the 1988 Act.

Mrs. Golding: I am saddened by what the Minister has said. The Government seem to be more interested in locking up children than they are in finding a way to give justice to children.

Mr. Maclean: That is unfair.

Mrs. Golding: I feel strongly about it. The way in which children give evidence in court is the result of shoddy compromise. We have gone from one Criminal Justice Bill to another, patching up, adding bits here and amending there, instead of devoting one large section of the Bill to enabling children to give evidence easily in our Courts. I am saddened that the Minister has not taken the opportunity tonight to help children to give evidence by reducing the strains and stresses that they feel.
It is not true that only one judge has said that that needs to be done. Mr. Justice Holland said that he would not subject small children to a confrontation and cross-examination as their first encounter in court. Many judges hold that view, and it is time that the House listened to the people who must deal with such children and know of the stress that they suffer. I am sorry that the Minister could not go further tonight.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 58

POWERS TO REMOVE PERSONS ATTENDING OR PREPARING FOR A RAVE

Lords amendment: No. 47, in page 44, line 13, after ("apply") insert ("—

(a) in England and Wales,")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 48, 51, 56 to 63 and 173.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Existing powers in Scotland were previously deemed to be adequate to deal with any problems likely to be encountered in controlling unlicensed raves. We were mindful of the fact that in extreme cases the police already have powers to seize music-making equipment and that those powers may serve as a deterrent to persons who might otherwise be inclined to hold illegal raves. Furthermore, there was a limited measure of control in respect of raves that enabled local authorities to require a licence for the use of premises as a place of public entertainment. In another place, we


undertook to review whether those powers were sufficient, in a preventive capacity, to stop growth in illegal raves in Scotland of the type experienced in England.
The outcome pointed to the possibility that persons who arrange such events may turn their unwelcome attention to the north if prevented from mounting raves south of the border, thereby causing misery to local residents. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland concurs with that view.
7.45 pm
Amendment No. 173 will have the effect of extending to Scotland prevention powers in relation to raves and the power to retain and to charge for seized vehicles and property, including musical equipment under clause 59. Although the existing rave scene in Scotland can adequately be contained, it may not be able to deal effectively with any increases in such events if organisers decided to exploit the potentially lucrative market in Scotland. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who tabled relevant amendments in Committee. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) also raised the issue.
Incidentally, in case any hon. Member does not know, a rave—for the purposes of clause 58—is a large gathering in the open air at which incredibly loud music is played during the night, likely to cause serious distress to local people. We are not in favour of unlicensed uncontrolled raving. In contrast, a licensed rave is a form of entertainment including dance and music that is approved by local authority licensing procedures and which, by definition, is unlikely to cause serious distress to local people.

Mr. Beith: The Minister may be encouraged to know that plans were made to hold a rave of the first kind in my constituency, within one mile of the Scottish border. That was desisted from after strong local opposition. I am relieved to inform the Minister that the organisers did not proceed to stage the event immediately north of the border, as they might have done.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman's point reinforces our argument that pre-emptive measures are necessary. I commend the amendment to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 70

INTERIM POSSESSION ORDERS; FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 70, in page 56, line 19, at end insert—

("() A person commits an offence if, for the purpose of resisting the making of an interim possession order, he—


(a) makes a statement which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular; or
(b) recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular.")

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments No. 71, Lords amendment No. 72, amendments (a) and (b) thereto and Lords amendment No. 73.

Mr. Michael: As I understand it, the effect of this group of amendments will be that a person will commit an offence if he or she makes a false statement to resist the making of an interim possession order. In a sense, it is the mirror image of the offence of obtaining an interim possession order using a false statement.
Our concern is that we are confronted by two sets of legislation—civil law and criminal law—relating to the same situation. In tabling this amendment, the Opposition seek clarification of the position and difficulties in which a person could find himself.
When the issue was debated in the other place, the Lord Chancellor was still in the process of finalising the details for making interim possession orders through civil law. There was to be an opportunity for legitimate occupiers, in limited circumstances, to make representations against the making of an order. The Lord Chancellor's decisions appear in a document issued by his Department in late July. In fact, it is a consultation paper on the proposed rules and forms of new procedures to combat squatting in housing, shops and other buildings.
That document states that the Government concluded that the determination of rights of occupation should continue in the civil courts but with an accelerated procedure and criminal sanctions available for non-compliance with an interim possession order. We have in view the situation in which an order is sought by an occupier to recover property. Obviously the most acute situation arises where the property is a house or a flat, but it relates also to other types of property. The former case concerns us most.
The new procedure will enable a person, referred to as "the applicant", who is entitled to immediate possession of a building, or part of a building, to apply to a county court for an interim possession order, provided that notice of an intention to commence proceedings has been given to the alleged squatter, known as "the occupier". The applicant will be required to attend before the judge, who will decide whether to make an order.
The important point is that the occupier will not be given notice of the hearing; nor will he or she have a right to attend. Therefore, a decision may be made in the civil proceedings without the occupier necessarily being aware of those proceedings and without the occupier having a right to be present. The court is expected, in the guidance given by the Lord Chancellor, to receive undertakings to protect the occupier in the event that the order is set aside.
My experience with housing—particularly inner-city housing that is in multiple occupation and where there is a great movement of people in and out of bedsits—is that, frequently, there are circumstances in which landlords go to the edge of the law and beyond in seeking to influence what takes place. I have seen people moved out of properties in which they should have been able to protect


themselves and remain. Protecting the rights of people is an area of considerable difficulty. Although there is a requirement on the court in terms of the evidence that must be produced and the satisfaction that the court must seek, we are dealing with an area in which, often, vulnerable people are in considerable difficulty, sometimes having to accept a flat or bedsit in unacceptable circumstances which are outside the requirements of the law. That makes them even more vulnerable. That is a grey area that concerns me, and is one which may cause people considerable difficulty.
If the order is made, it will require all occupiers to leave the premises within 24 hours of service of the order. Failure to obey the order will constitute a criminal offence. That is the point where we move from what is a civil process. Failure to obey an order made under that process becomes a criminal act. In circumstances in which somebody is occupying a property to which they have no right, or in circumstances in which they really should get out, I can understand why the Government seek to give that criminal sanction.
But where a house in multiple occupation is being dealt with by the landlord at the edges of the law, or perhaps in contravention of the law, we must ensure that there is some way of protecting the vulnerable individuals, as they are often young people. Sometimes they are young people who have come out of care. Sometimes they are young couples with a baby who have had to find accommodation at short notice. On some occasions, perhaps—as a lawyer friend suggested to me yesterday when we were examining these circumstances—members of a family may have fallen out. In such circumstances, the situation is far from clear-cut. It is certainly not as clear-cut as the circumstances that I understand the Minister seeks to target.
In the situations set down by the Lord Chancellor, an occupier who believes that he or she has a right of occupation may apply to have the order set aside. What is that person's situation? My understanding is that he or she will have committed a criminal offence if, in the meantime, he or she enters or seeks to continue to occupy the property. In other words, even though an order may be set out at a later stage, because of the existence of that order, that person will have committed a criminal act by continuing to assert his or her rights of occupation. That is a reasonably clear situation, which arises out of the overlap of civil and criminal law.
It is certainly the case that the individual would be uncertain of his or her situation. If the person believes that he or she has a right of occupation and at a later stage goes to have the order set aside and is unsuccessful, that person will have committed a criminal act, albeit with the belief that he or she was not committing a criminal act during the life of the order, because it is sustained. It is arguable that that person may have been committing a criminal act, even if the order is set aside, but obviously it is less likely that that will be pursued or stand on the record. It is possible that it could stand on a record somewhere, because I have yet to find the process set out anywhere by which the individual is found guilty or where that person can clear himself or herself of the offence. The problem is that the offence seems to be automatic.
My understanding is that, with a criminal offence, there must be a process of deciding, hearing and making a finding of guilt, but that does not appear to be the case in the overlap of criminal and civil law. It seems to be that

the making of the order and the contravention of the civil order is automatically a criminal offence, even when dealing with an individual who has a right to continue in occupation. The problem is that, if a person has that right, it is not necessarily sustained by the court, because the court will not come to a decision on every occasion. There might be marginal decisions, especially in the circumstances to which I referred, where a tenancy or family arrangement is not in the definitions that are sanctioned and clear in law.
I come back to the point that there is a danger in such a state of affairs. The Opposition amendments offer protection and, unless they there accepted, there will be a danger that somebody could find himself or herself guilty of a criminal offence as a result of a civil procedure of which he or she is not aware and despite being in the honest belief that he or she is not committing any offence and has the right to occupy the property. If the person enters the premises, which he or she is entitled to occupy, that person is, presumably, committing an offence. How does a person become guilty of the offence in the circumstances envisaged under the Bill? What proof is required? What is the capacity for proving the innocence Of somebody who asserts that he or she is not committing an offence in those circumstances? Might not we risk making an innocent person guilty of a technical offence and therefore giving them a criminal record, when, in fact, we are simply dealing with a vulnerable person whom the law should protect?
I hope that the Minister will accept that, in the circumstances that I have envisaged, there are dangers that vulnerable people—the very people who would be least likely to know their rights—could be in difficulty. It is for that reason that I have tabled my amendments. Amendment (a) seeks to insert words that would make it clear that the onus of proof shall lie on the person who obtained the interim possession order. That, with the protection that is in the legislation against people making a false declaration, seems to me to help to some extent.
Amendment (b) would insert another exemption. Somebody would not be committing an offence in the circumstances described if that person were able to produce evidence to a court that satisfied that court of the entitlement of the person to occupy the premises other than as a trespasser. That is something which the individual could seek to do immediately, without delay, even if he or she was unaware. That person would not have to wait until the date of making the return to the order to produce evidence and would therefore not put him or herself at risk of committing a criminal offence during the period to the return date.
I hope that the Minister will see that I am not trying to interfere with the general intention of the clause or, indeed, to interfere with the general intention of their lordships in their amendment. I am simply trying to bring in further protection, which could apply only in the sort of circumstances that I have outlined and could not therefore obstruct the use of the Act in the way intended by the Government. I hope very much that the Minister will feel able to accept both amendments, but particularly amendment (b).

Mr. Maclean: I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and I think I understand his worry. I accept that he is not trying to wreck the proposals—these are


certainly not wrecking amendments—but I think that he has misdirected himself slightly; or, to be really fair as I always am, perhaps the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) misdirected him slightly. I hope that I can show that the amendments are unnecessary.
8 pm
Amendment (a) would place the onus on the property owner to prove that someone found on premises subject to an interim possession order was a trespasser. It is not right, however, for a fundamental element of the establishment of a criminal offence—proving that the defendant was a trespasser—to be removed from the burden on the prosecutor and placed in the hands of the person who obtained the interim possession order. That person must satisfy a civil court that he is entitled to obtain the order; once he has obtained it, if someone is found on the property or subsequently enters it, that may be a criminal offence. It is the duty of the prosecutor to satisfy a criminal court later, and satisfy the requirement of the normal criminal burden of proof, that that person was trespassing. We cannot lay the burden on a person who is not the Crown prosecutor.

Mr. Bennett: The majority of my constituents do not want to risk committing an offence. They want certainty; they do not want the worry involved in letting someone else prove the case.
In the area that I used to represent, people who had bought biggish houses on mortgages would put in four or five bedsits, often illegally. At some point, the mortgagee would foreclose and repossess the dwelling, leaving the occupants of the bedsits in a difficult position: having, in some cases, paid a month's rent in advance, they would suddenly be told that they were out on the street. In such circumstances, it would surely be unfair to tell the occupants that they were not entitled to return to their bedsits and take possession of their own property, but it seems that the Government's proposals would land them with the worry that by going back in they would commit a criminal offence.

Mr. Maclean: That is a civil matter for the civil court to determine in the first instance, when an application is made for an interim possession order. The civil court must be satisfied at that point. I understand the purpose of the Opposition amendments, and I do not condemn them as wrecking amendments, because they clearly are not.

Mr. Bennett: The people whom I described—the occupants of the bedsits—knew nothing about the proceedings of the giver of the mortgage and the owner of the property. They simply returned to find that the ownership of the property had changed, and they were locked out on the street. In such circumstances, people's natural reaction is to try to break down the door to get back into a bedsit that they believe they have a legal right to occupy.

Mr. Maclean: It is proposed that the occupant will be informed of the intention to apply for an interim possession order by whoever is involved. The Lord Chancellor clearly wishes to cover that in his rules, so that the occupant is informed that someone—whether it is the person he believes to be the landlord, or the Timbuctoo property company—is trying to gain possession of the

property, so that he can make written representations to the court. That is a civil matter. The burden of proof, if and when an interim possession order has been granted, is another matter entirely. We cannot have "civilians"—that is, those who obtain interim possession orders—taking on the burden of proof in a criminal case; that is the Crown prosecutor's duty, and if he does not carry it out he will fail.

Mr. Michael: The Minister's comments are quite helpful. They are beginning to clarify the procedure that will apply.
In the civil procedure, the court would presumably require evidence that an order had been served; but it would presumably be up to the applicant to produce that evidence. I can envisage circumstances—as, clearly, can my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—in which a court might be misled. The real problem arises, however, with the shift into the criminal part of the proceedings. How is the criminal case determined? How is it triggered by the sort of breach that would cause worry to constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, or to the people whom I cited in my earlier illustrations?

Mr. Maclean: The Bill is clear in this respect. A criminal offence could be committed if a person granted an interim possession order found people on the premises in breach of that order—or, if the original people had left, a new bunch came in five minutes later. Those are the basic makings of the offence. The Crown Prosecution Service would have to decide whether, in its judgment, an offence had been committed, and advance its findings to the court; the court would then have to make the ultimate decision that the offence had been proved to its satisfaction, according to the full criminal law.
As the provision stands, a prosecutor would have to prove in any criminal proceedings that the defendant was a trespasser; in the same way, he would have to prove all the other elements of the offence. Moreover, the prosecutor would have to prove that to the satisfaction of the court—that is, beyond all reasonable doubt. There is therefore no risk that a legitimate occupant would be wrongly convicted of the offence, which is the eventuality against which the Opposition wish to safeguard.

Mr. Stephen: Is not the crux of the matter the fact that the criminal court would not be bound to assume from the mere fact of an order's existence that the occupier was a trespasser? It would be an absolute defence for the occupier—that is, the defendant in the criminal proceedings—to show that he was not in fact the trespasser.

Mr. Maclean: That is the next point with which I shall deal.

Mr. Michael: I understand the example given by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen). The law may be clear, but the situation is not clear to a person who goes into a property believing that he has a right to do so. In the circumstances cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, when there are locks on the door, is that person entitled to enter a property to which he has an legitimate right, or is he putting himself at risk because it may be decided later that the civil court does not accept


that he has a legitimate right to enter the property, even to recover his possessions? In such circumstances, people will put themselves at risk of gaining a criminal record.

Mr. Maclean: It is clear that, once an interim possession order has been granted, the possibility exists that a criminal offence will be committed by people who breach it if, later, a criminal court is convinced that an offence has been committed. If the criminal court subsequently discovers that the person concerned is not a trespasser but a legitimate tenant—or has a right to be on the premises for another reason—the prosecutor will have failed to prove his case, and the person will not be convicted.

Mr. Michael: Let us suppose that a large company, with a bureaucratic organisation that may therefore be inaccurate, locks up a property that it believes itself to have legitimately repossessed. Those in occupation are unable to enter the premises without transgressing the order; they are therefore unable to do anything until the return date of the order, which they can then challenge.
Amendment (b) would allow such people to appear before a court immediately and to say that they have evidence—a rent book, an agreement or a letter from the previous owner, for instance—enabling them to go back into occupation without committing a criminal act. They could not do that gratuitously or at will. Without such evidence, surely there is no opportunity for them to resume occupation.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman's scenario ignores one point. Under the Lord Chancellor's rules, the occupiers would have to receive notification that a property company, for example, was applying for an interim possession order, and have a chance to make representations to the court. Before the court could grant the interim possession order preventing the occupiers from entering the property that they considered to be theirs, it would have to be satisfied that the person applying for the order had a legitimate right to do so. That is the first safeguard.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment is not tacked on to the part of the Bill that the hon. Gentleman thinks it is. The effect of the amendment is that someone found on premises subject to an interim possession order would not be guilty of an offence if he could prove to the satisfaction of the court that he was lawfully entitled to occupy the premises. With respect, that is unnecessary since in its own definition the offence applies only to trespassers and cannot catch someone who legitimately enters the property. If a person proves to the court that he has a right to enter the property, he is not a trespasser and, therefore,

no offence is committed. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tried to put in place a safeguard, but the safeguard is already in the wording of the law.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Maclean: We are making heavy weather of this.

Mr. Michael: It is important to get this clear. Can the Minister tell me how, in advance of the return date of the order, that person would persuade anybody of his legitimate right of occupancy?

Mr. Maclean: I apologise. Will the hon. Gentleman please repeat his question?

Mr. Michael: Prior to the date of the return of the order, how would that individual persuade a court—it could be a magistrates court; it would not have to be a civil court that had made the order—that he has the right to occupy the premises and therefore avoid any accusation that he is committing a criminal act?

Mr. Maclean: A trespasser would not be able to avoid that allegation. Many people cannot avoid allegations that they have committed crimes, but that does not make them criminals by any means, thank goodness. If the police decided that someone was on property in breach of an interim possession order, they would presumably want to apply the criminal offence. The prosecution would have to prove to the court that the person was there illegally as a trespasser. If, in the mean time, the civil court has decided that the person is not a trespasser—that is a telling point in a criminal prosecution—the prosecutor would not be able to succeed. The prosecutor would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt—the normal standard in a criminal court—that the person was a trespasser. If, in the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical scenario, the person is not a trespasser, he cannot be found guilty.
I fail to see where the problem materialises. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman raised these amendments because he was worried about the effects of the law in this area. However, the law is quite clear. The hon. Gentleman's amendments are unnecessary. I give the hon. Gentleman credit for trying to ensure that people are not wrongly convicted by trying to impose the new criminal burden of proof in a civil matter, but, as I have said, that is not appropriate. The hon. Gentleman's second amendment is not appropriate on the basis that a person cannot he convicted of a criminal offence unless he or she is a trespasser. One does not need to add that anyone who is not a trespasser cannot be convicted.

Mr. Michael: I accept that the law may be clear, but the risk at which somebody can find himself put as a result of the decision of a civil proceeding at which he need not be present and at which he has no right of hearing is a risk which we should not take. We need only provide the ability for him to avoid that doubt by going before a court and saying, "There is no doubt and here is the evidence of my right to possess." Nobody without that evidence would be able to persuade a court, so there is no risk that it would weaken in any way the provisions of the Bill in regard to either the civil proceedings or the criminal element.

Mr. David Ashby: I have been listening carefully to the arguments. Does not this


apply to every criminal act? The issue is whether the prosecution can prove the case or whether there is doubt. It happens in every criminal act.

Mr. Michael: No, it does not. That is wrong. The possibility of having committed a criminal act arises only as a result of a civil order being made in which the person most directly affected is not concerned. The doubt is real and it should be capable of being cleared if evidence can be produced. We should not have to wait until the end of the civil proceedings in order to clarify a person's criminal standing.
I appreciate that the Minister has tried to respond positively to the points I have raised and we have had a genuine debate. I shall not seek to press amendment (a) because the Minister's point about the responsibility for producing evidence is reasonable. However, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to press amendment (b) to a Division.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No 71 agreed to.

Clause 71

INTERIM POSSESSION ORDERS: FAILURE TO COMPLY AN OFFENCE

Lords amendment: No. 72, in page 56, line 42, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

("(2) Subject to subsection (2A), a person who is present on the premises as a trespasser at any time during the currency of the order commits an offence.

(2A) No offence under subsection (2) is committed by a person if—

(a) he leaves the premises within 24 hours of the time of service of the order and does not return; or
(b) a copy of the order was not fixed to the premises in accordance with rules of court.

(2B) A person who was in occupation of the premises at the time of service of the order but leaves them commits an offence if he re-enters the premises as a trespasser or attempts to do so after the expiry of the order but within the period of one year beginning with the day on which it was served.")

Amendment proposed to the Lords. amendment: (b), in line 9, at end insert—

'(c) evidence is produced to a court which satisfies that court of the entitlement of the person to occupy the premises other than as a trespasser.'. —[Mr. Michael.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Dr. John Gilbert(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have to report to you, Sir, that access to the House is being impeded by certain members of the Metropolitan police. Cars are being allowed down Whitehall, the Embankment and Victoria street, but I was advised to walk through Birdcage walk to make the Division. I had to get out of my taxi and walk quickly. No doubt there may be other hon. Members who will not know of the police activity. I explained to the policeman that I was a Member of the House and that there was a Division pending.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have had a

report from the Serjeant at Arms that there are difficulties, and I have asked for a further report. We will make a judgment when we see what happens. I am relying on hon. Members' ingenuity at the moment.

The House having divided: Ayes 250, Noes 290.

Division No. 308]
[8.17 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Denham, John


Ainger, Nick
Dewar, Donald


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Donohoe, Brian H.


Anderson, Ms Janet
Dunnachie, Jimmy


(Ros'dale)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Armstrong, Hilary
Eastham, Ken


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Enright, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barnes, Harry
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Barron, Kevin
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Battle, John
Flynn, Paul


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bell, Stuart
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fyfe, Maria


Benton, Joe
Galloway, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Gapes, Mike


Betts, Clive
Garrett, John


Blair, Tony
George, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gerrard, Neil


Boyes, Roland
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godsiff, Roger


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Graham, Thomas


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Byers, Stephen
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cann, Jamie
Henderson, Doug


Chidgey, David
Heppell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Church, Judith
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Hodge, Margaret


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coffey, Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corston, Jean
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Adam


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mofln)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Alan


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Khabra, Piara S.






Kilfoyle, Peter
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Radice, Giles


Kirkwood, Archy
Randall, Stuart


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Terry
Redmond, Martin


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Reid, Dr John


Litherland, Robert
Rendel, David


Livingstone, Ken
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Loyden, Eddie
Rogers, Allan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooker, Jeff


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


MacShane, Denis
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted


Mahon, Alice
Ruddock, Joan


Marek, Dr John
Salmond, Alex


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martlew, Eric
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Simpson, Alan


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F's bury)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McLeish, Henry
Snape, Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Speller, John


Meale, Alan
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michael, Alun
Stevenson, George


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stott, Roger


Milburn, Alan
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Miller, Andrew
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morley, Elliot
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Timms, Stephen


Mowlam, Marjorie
Tipping, Paddy


Mudie, George
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Tyler, Paul


Murphy, Paul
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Walley, Joan


O'Neill, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wareing, Robert N


Olner, William
Watson, Mike


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Andrew


Parry, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Pickthall, Colin
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L.
Wise, Audrey


Pope, Greg
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wray, Jimmy


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wright, Dr Tony


Prescott, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Gordon McMaster and


Purchase, Ken
Mr. Jim Dowd




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkins, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Pete (Hexham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Ancram, Michael
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Batiste, Spencer


Ashby, David
Bellingham, Henry


Aspinwall, Jack
Bendall, Vivian





Beresford, Sir Paul
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garnier, Edward


Body, Sir Richard
Gill, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Booth, Hartley
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Brown, M. (Brigg " Cl'thorpes)
Hanson, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Harris, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Haselhurst, Alan


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawkins, Nick


Burns, Simon
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Butcher, John
Heald, Oliver


Butler, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carttiss, Michael
Horam, John


Cash, William
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clappison, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunter, Andrew


Congdon, David
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Starnford)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knox, Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Eggar, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Elletson, Harold
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lidington, David


Faber, David
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKey, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, Sir David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Malone, Gerald


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marlow, Tony






Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Soamas, Nicholas


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Speed, Sir Keith


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spencer, Sir Derek


McCrea, Rev William
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spring, Richard


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sproat, Iain


Merchant, Piers
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mills, Iain
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stephen, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Stern, Michael


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stewart, Allan


Monro, Sir Hector
Streeter, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sumberg, David


Moss, Malcolm
Sweeney, Walter


Nelson, Anthony
Sykes, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Norris, Steve
Thomason, Roy

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ottaway, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Paisley, Rev Ian
Tredinnick, David


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Trend, Michael


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trimble, David


Pawsey, James
Trotter, Naville


Pickles, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Richards, Rod
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Ward, John


Robathan, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waterson, Nigel


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wells, Bowen


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Rt Hon Darne Angela
Whittingdale, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Tom
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Sims, Roger
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Timothy Wood and


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Derek Conway

Question accordingly negatived.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 75

REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO GIPSY SITES

Lords amendment: No. 79, in page 60, line 24, at end insert—

("() This section is subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) of section 152.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 157, 160, 169, 315, 316 and 335 and the Government motions to disagree.

Mr. Jones: Clause 75 would repeal the gipsy site provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, including the duty placed on local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies in their areas. It would also repeal the Secretary of State's powers to designate local authority areas and to direct authorities to provide sites or additional sites. It would further repeal the Secretary of State's powers under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to pay grant to local authorities in England and Wales in respect of the capital cost of gipsy site provision.
It was our original intention to bring these repeals into force immediately on Royal Assent. Amendment No. 79 and the amendments grouped with it would delay those repeals until after 1 July 1999. The sole exception would be the repeal of the designation provisions in the 1968 Act, which would come into force on Royal Assent. Even after 1 July 1999, the repeals could come into force only by means of commencement orders in relation to local authority areas. Each order would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That process would obviously mean further delay in bringing the repeals into force in England and Wales, in some cases long beyond the initial five-year extension.
The Government disagree with the amendments and I invite the House to reject them. One of the noble Lords who tabled the amendments in another place argued that the proposed delay would give local authorities an opportunity to reduce substantially the shortfall in the provision of accommodation for gipsies. We do not believe that a five-year reprieve would have such an effect.
In the past 13 years, the number of gipsy caravans stationed on unauthorised sites has remained broadly the same year after year— an average of 4,000 caravans each year since 1981— even though 100 per cent. grant for the capital costs of site provision has been available since 1978 and £87 million has been expended on site provision. The shortfall in provision has been largely due to natural growth in the gipsy population. Plainly, site provision is barely keeping pace with the growth in demand and is not reducing the shortfall.
There is simply no basis on which to believe that a five-year extension would lead to sites being provided for all gipsy families who have no lawful place to camp. What would a five-year delay achieve? It would not make it any easier for local authorities to find suitable sites; nor would it check the natural growth in the gipsy population. The evidence of the past 24 years suggests that in five years' time we shall be no further on in reducing unauthorised camping.

Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend mentioned the natural growth in the gipsy population. First, will he reassure me that there is no possibility or danger of what we understand here as new age travellers— whom most people would not regard as


gipsies— benefiting from the planning arrangements that the Government's proposals envisage? Secondly, will he address the concerns, of which I think he is aware, that have been expressed by the National Farmers Union, which fears that the removal of the Lords amendments might result in a worsening rather than an easing of the present problem for farmers and others arising from unauthorised encampments?

Mr. Jones: On my hon. Friend's first point, I do not believe that there is a major danger, as there has been a court finding on the definition of gipsies as opposed to new age travellers. We are pretty confident on that count. On his second point, we shall have to see how local authorities behave, but the proposed powers are stronger and cover a far wider part of the country, which should be enough to reassure the NFU.
We have serious principled objections to the amendments. My Department has carried out a detailed review of gipsy site policy. The consultation paper that my Department issued in August 1992 elicited almost 1,000 responses from a wide range of interests, including local authorities and organisations representing gipsies and landowners. We considered carefully all the responses before making our legislative proposals. That process has taken more than two years to reach this stage. It is now proposed that there should be a further delay of at least five years in bringing these long-awaited reforms into force and we believe that that procrastination cannot be justified.
We recognise that council site provision has contributed to alleviating the difficulties experienced by the gipsy community. Indeed, the predicament of gipsies in England and Wales is now far different from in 1968. At that time, probably fewer than 10 per cent. of gipsy caravans in England and Wales were stationed on authorised sites, whereas the figure is now about 46 per cent. A further 24 per cent. are on authorised private sites, and many more are stationed on tolerated sites where they are allowed to stay with reasonable security from eviction. Some of our critics have claimed that our reforms would place gipsies in the same predicament that they faced in 1968, but that is manifestly not the case.
We believe that public provision of sites has now reached an acceptable level. Public accommodation has been provided for 46 per cent. of the total number of gipsy caravans in England and Wales. We do not believe that it is in the public interest to continue to maintain what has become an open-ended commitment to provide sites for all gipsies seeking accommodation at the public's expense. It is our view that the right approach now is to encourage more gipsies to establish their own sites through the planning system. We know that many gipsy families would prefer to establish their own sites rather than reside on council sites. The National Gypsy Council has for a long time supported the case for private provision. Private site provision has increased by more than 135 per cent. since 1981. Our intention is to encourage that trend.
I am familiar with the argument that the planning rules are stacked against gipsies and that consequently many of them are wont to purchase and occupy land without first getting planning permission. That practice invariably adds to their problems. In January, my Department issued a circular entitled "Gypsy Sites and Planning" which

provides a framework that we believe will give gipsies the confidence to use the usual planning procedures to establish their own sites.
The new guidance advises planning authorities to set out clear policies in their development plans to meet gipsies' accommodation needs, to consult gipsies and their representatives when preparing their plans, and to advise and offer practical help to gipsies with the planning procedures. We are determined to ensure that the planning system operates fairly and that planning applications for the development of gipsy sites are treated on the same basis as other applications.
The Government are committed to reducing the level of unauthorised camping. Unauthorised camping by gipsies and other travellers causes serious nuisance and offence to landowners and local communities. All hon. Members know that the dimensions of that problem, and public awareness of it, have increased in recent years. Public expectations are high. In some areas of England and Wales, hardly a week passes without a new incident of unauthorised camping making the headlines in the local press. The reaction of local people is always the same: "Surely something should be done about it" and "Surely the police or the local authority must deal with this nuisance". There is always bewilderment and frustration that the powers currently available to local authorities are circumscribed and rarely allow authorities to take effective action. Our proposals will enable them to control unauthorised camping in their areas.
We have presented a comprehensive package of proposals which we believe will reduce unauthorised camping and give gipsies reasonable opportunities to find suitable accommodation. Our proposals would replace a system of site provision that has been in operation for 24 years and has manifestly failed to achieve those objectives. The lengthy period of procrastination proposed in the amendments would serve no useful purpose and would be greeted with dismay in many quarters. I strongly urge the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He and I served for a number of years on the Select Committee on the Environment, and it was a pleasure to hear him answering questions earlier today and now to hear him open this debate. However, the fact that we are discussing gipsies during a debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill highlights one of our main objections to the proposals. We believe that the proper way to deal with the issue would be in a Department of the Environment Bill rather than its being included in this Bill, which covers so many different subjects. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that we do not agree with him and I can say at the outset that we intend to divide the House.
We believe that the Lords amendment is a modest proposal and should remain in the Bill. We said on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report and, indeed, when the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) introduced a private Member's Bill on a similar subject, that the Government's proposals to repeal part of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 do not solve any problems but create more. Delaying the implementation of the relevant part of the Bill would give the Government, local authorities and everyone else involved at least five more years in which to consider the sensible way to proceed.


8.45 pm
What would be achieved by passing the Bill in its original form without the Lords amendment? To do so would criminalise some gipsies and increase homelessness; it would cause family breakdown and place added pressures on social and education services. It would certainly not solve any problems. Indeed, it is our view that it would create more problems and improve nothing.
As the Minister knows, about 38 per cent. of English local authorities are designated. The Bill would give similar powers to all local authorities, whether or not they were designated. At the moment, designation provides local authorities with powers to act rapidly through the magistrates courts to remove unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants from highways or unoccupied land or from occupied land with the landowner's consent.
I wish to make it clear again that we are not condoning the trouble caused by people on a minority of unauthorised sites. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties have had to deal with such problems. However, the majority of the gipsy population do not create such problems, but we are once again being asked to legislate against all gipsies and people who live a similar life style in order to deal with the problems created by a minority. That is wrong.
The Minister mentioned the provision of private sites. We have no objection to that or to the provision of smaller sites, whether publicly or privately funded. We must approach the matter positively. If the House were to accept the Lords amendment, we should be able to examine the question at greater length.
The Minister knows that the view that I am expressing is not held exclusively by the Labour party but has the support of all three local authority associations—the Association of District Councils, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It also has the support of the National Farmers Union, an organisation which does not usually side with the Labour party, and that of Save the Children Fund, which believes that the Government's proposals are wrong.
We accept that local opinion is often very much opposed to applications for gipsy sites and that it can be extremely difficult to secure the establishment of such sites. However, we must recognise that that is so whether sites are publicly or privately funded. A new way forward must be found.
The Minister's predecessor always said that he accepted in good faith that it was not the intention to force gipsies on to sites in totally unsuitable and undesirable areas, next to rubbish tips, and so on. Some people think that we should look for that type of solution. Even though we disagree on his principal proposals, I hope that that is not what the Minister would advocate.
In the consultations, the Government suggested that they would like to encourage more of the people involved to move into permanent housing. Given the Government's record in providing affordable housing for rent over the past few years, it seems crazy to add to the problem by adding another category of people who do not want housing, and telling them that going into such accommodation is the only way forward for them. That is nonsense.
Save the Children, which has taken a close interest in the subject throughout the consultations with the Government and at every stage of the Bill's progress through the House, has sent a letter to all Members of Parliament, which says:
As providers of services to children in Gipsy and Traveller families, our concern is for their welfare. Availability of sufficient and suitable caravan site accommodation is the best way to safeguard the health of children, their access to schooling, and their emotional development.
Those are important facts which we must recognise, and I believe that the Government's proposals would move us in the wrong direction.
The letter continues:
The shortage of legal stopping places means that some families have no option but to stop on unauthorised sites. We consider the duty on local authorities to provide sites should be retained and that this will help minimise the incidence of unauthorised stopping.
The problem today—if we accept that there is a problem—is caused not by over-provision of sites, but by the fact that to date 62 per cent. of councils have failed to provide sites within their areas. I am sure that the Minister will point out that many of those councils are Labour-controlled, and I accept that; I am not making a political point. I simply say that the local authorities concerned must consider the problem and see what they can do.
We believe that the five-year delay that would result from leaving the Bill as it came from the House of Lords and agreeing to the Lords amendment would enable the Government to examine the developments that took place during that time. We should like the gipsies themselves to be involved in discussions at national and local level, and everybody could try to find a positive way forward.
In the discussions that I have had, it has been clear that many people believe that the sites provided by many local authorities, designed for 30 or 40 caravan pitches, are too big. Authorities should consider smaller sites that would accommodate the extended family life style that many gipsies lead. Smaller sites would be more desirable for them, and would often cause less friction locally. I accept that such smaller sites could be privately or publicly funded.
Clearly, we shall not achieve anything by supporting the Government in deleting Lords amendment No. 79 and the related Lords amendments. We must try to examine the situation positively, and recognise gipsies' needs for access to education for their children—I referred to that a few moments ago—and access to health service provision, whether through a general practitioner or through community health services. Ante-natal care and safe childbirth are also important. All those issues must be considered, and so must the environmental health implications.
We have had many debates on such issues, and many stronger alternatives have been debated at earlier stages in the Bill. I realise that we cannot reopen all those debates tonight. However, the Opposition strongly believe that if the Government win the vote at the end of the debate they will create a problem and solve none. They should heed the voices of reason, and allow us a five-year breathing space, to allow all those involved to try to


achieve a positive and more acceptable solution that will not create the problems that the Government's rejection of the Lords amendment will cause.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I have listened to the argument, which is highly sensitive. One wants to do the maximum that one can to assist the gipsies, but—the Minister has explained the point remarkably well—the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is out of date and has been proved to be so. We have had 26 years of experience of the Act, and during that time, if two of its main provisions—one of which was providing sufficient accommodation for gipsies and providing it in the most suitable places—were going to prove useful, they would have done so by now.
I shall cite one case from Bedford, involving the Cutthroat lane site. It was put in the wrong place, too near residents and next door to Sainsbury, and is causing the utmost commotion. One blames not the gipsies but the local authority for the decision. We are trying to change all the provisions. The Act has also failed to reduce the incidence of illegal camping; I shall say more about that in a moment.
Surely their lordships have not made the right decision. If they considered the matter carefully against the background of the past 25 or 26 years, and decided that they wanted another five years, what did they want the additional time for? The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said that he wants another five years, at the end of which we should be able to review the position—but we should be no better off at the end of that period than we are now. The Minister's suggestion of new planning guidance, and the idea that the gipsies themselves should provide some of their own accommodation on their own sites under the planning system, appeal to me, and no doubt to many others in the House.
I shall state why I think that people are supporting some of the planning applications. It is not merely the granting of the planning permission that is important; it is the securing of a 100 per cent. grant for the local authorities. The local authorities know that for as many sites as they build, 100 per cent. grant will be granted. The result is that the authorities want money for those sites. But, having got the sites, they prove to be a liability, not merely to the local communities, but to the local gipsies themselves. There are two such sites in Bedford already, one of which has caused the utmost turmoil to the local residents. That was broken up over the years. The other site is a little outside Bedford where the gipsies destroyed their own accommodation, which has to be rehabilitated with the aid of Government money at great expense. I wonder whether the Opposition have considered that.
The other matter that I should like to stress is that in 1966 there were 3,500 illegally camped caravans in England. Today, after the provision of an extra 17,000 caravan pitches in the past 26 years, there are 7,000 illegal caravan encampments. If the local authorities have failed to provide enough caravan sites, are they likely to secure any great easement of the situation over the next five years, for which I understand their lordships are asking for modifications? No, I think that the Minister presented a good case. He put forward some of the arguments that I had in mind and I thank him for doing that. I hope that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept the view that there is no reason why the Lords amendments should be accepted.

9 pm

Mr. David Rendel: My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are very sad about the Government's moves tonight. They appear to be trying to take the heart out of the excellent legislation which was first proposed, I understand, in the House by my noble Friend Lord Avebury. There has been some grudging acceptance on the Government Benches that that legislation has done much good.
There is a clear case to be made for the huge increase in authorised sites over the past few years having come about largely as a result of that legislation. The problem that the Government seem to be hitting is that that legislation has not increased the number of sites any faster than the increase in the gipsy population. That is not necessarily a reason for removing legislation altogether, which may make the situation even worse, because it looks likely that the increase in the number of sites in future will not even keep up with the gipsy population if the Government are determined to take that route.
The Government may be saying—some Opposition Members suspect that they are—that they simply do not want to see as many sites produced in future as would be produced if the legislation were left in place. If so, I regard that as very sad. But there are many reasons for supposing that we need a real increase in sites, and I hope that the Government will, as they claim to be doing, try to ensure that that increase occurs. It is, of course, also possible that the Government, while wishing to see an increase in sites, simply wish to decrease the average amount of money spent to set up each of those sites.
However, if we assume for a moment that the Government want to see an increase in sites, I think they are right, for the following reasons. First, there is all the human cost incurred in leaving a large number of the gipsy population on unauthorised sites. There is a human cost incurred by moving on the gipsies from site to site every few days—sometimes, perhaps, every few weeks, but often every few days.
There is a human cost in the stress on family life and the likelihood that families will break up as a result. There is a human cost among the children of those families—not only because the families themselves are stressed, but because of the difficulties children have in getting a reasonable education. At a time when, surely, we are all saying that the people of our country, our most valuable resource, need all the education and training that they can get to take up the jobs of the future, we should be saying that gipsy families should have the right, and the opportunity as well, to obtain a good education for themselves.
There is also the human cost in terms of the inaccessibility of health care to those who are constantly being moved from place to place. That is perhaps especially true of those mothers who are having children. We must recognise that human cost.
Even if the Government are not prepared to recognise the human cost, surely they should recognise the financial cost involved. I am referring to the farming community, which has already been mentioned. It is clear, as we were told earlier by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), that the National Farmers Union is no friend of the Labour party.


I must tell the Government that although, when I first fought the Newbury seat, I was fairly certain that 90 per cent. of the farmers were voting against me—possibly more than that—by the time that I last fought the seat, I was pretty sure that 90 per cent. of the farmers were in favour of me. The reason is not least because the Government have shown themselves to be extremely farmer-unfriendly, and they are still showing themselves as such in their moves tonight.
We must also consider the cost to society as a whole. Can we really believe that it is right that the upbringing of children should be disrupted? Can it really be right that children should grow up without a proper education? Is that really the way to bring our social costs down? Even the Government should recognise the financial costs involved.
A possible reason for the Government introducing the measure is that they want the costs of each site reduced. If that is the case, will it actually happen? If there is a reduction in the increase in the number of authorised sites, the social and other costs to which I have just referred must greatly outweigh a reduction in the cost of the small number of extra sites set up by the gipsies.
If we are prepared to provide decent homes, as far as we can, for those who are homeless and in priority need, and such a provision still exists under the Government's new homelessness legislation, is it right that we should refuse to pay anything towards the homing costs of gipsy families when they have young children to look after? That seems to be gross discrimination against the gipsy population, and we should not put up with that.
If the Government assume that the number of sites will increase if there are to be only private sites in future, at least we should have an opportunity to put the policy into practice alongside the old legislation, so that we can see whether it really works.
The Caravan Sites Act 1968 has been in place for some time. It has not worked, because some local authorities have been allowed to get away with it. They have been allowed to get away with not fulfilling their obligations under the legislation. The Government should be enforcing that legislation properly. They should tell local authorities that they must fulfil their obligations to the community at large.
If the Government do not do that, the message sent to local authorities is that if they do not like legislation and do not want to fulfil their obligations, they can forget them for a while and let other authorities that are prepared to fulfil their obligations do that. The Government will not treat those local authorities fairly, because, in the end, they will tell them that, as they have not fulfilled their obligations for several years, they will drop those obligations entirely.
That is not a fair way to treat local authorities that have fulfilled their obligations, or the authorities that believe that they have an obligation to their local gipsy families. That is not a fair way to proceed, and the Government should not remove the amendment tonight.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel)—[Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) leaves the Chamber, he might like to know that I intend to ask him a question in a moment.
I was one of the Conservative Members who, some years ago, pressed the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), very strongly when he was introducing proposals on squatting, to take similar measures against what I described as the menace of rural squatting—the subject of this debate. I was therefore extremely pleased by the Government's proposals in the Bill, which were foreshadowed, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, in the consultation paper.
However, I was alarmed when the Lords passed this amendment. I was particularly alarmed because, at that precise time, the Liberal Democrat-controlled Cornwall county council was trying to force through a scheme to impose—there is no other word to describe it—sites for new age travellers on the six district councils in Cornwall. Naturally, that created uproar from one end of the county to another.
The scheme was ill thought out. The council broke practically every rule in the planning book. There was no consultation. Someone in my constituency who happened to own a site did not even know of the proposal until he left a local post office and someone said to him, "I hear that they are going to put a site on your land."
What a dreadful way to act! There was mayhem from one end of the county to another. Protest meetings were held. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), I played a leading role in opposing the plans, and I make no apology for that. I believed that they trampled on the rights of local people.
Of course, taken in isolation, the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury has some force. Of course we all want a humane society; but just as gipsies and new age travellers have rights, so, too, do local people, and their rights were being trampled on by the plans drawn up by the Liberal Democrat-controlled Cornwall county council—

Mr. Paul Tyler: rose—

Mr. Harris: Before the hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, I want to ask him a question. He has never made this clear; nor did the Euro-MP who, in the election campaign, spoke about all sorts of domestic issues but not about European issues. Did the hon. Member for North Cornwall support the plan drawn up by Cornwall county council for the county in general and for his constituency in particular?

Mr. Tyler: I am in favour of authorised sites, not unauthorised ones. It is extremely irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman, who fought an effective nimby campaign on this issue, to ignore the fact that there was wide consultation with all six district councils two years ago to establish the principle that in each district a site should be set up. I do not get involved in planning decisions. I was not involved in identifying which sites should be set up where—but it is a fact that each district agreed to establish a site.
Secondly, in my village there is an authorised site on which for many years gipsies have played a responsible part in the local community. That was in line with what the county council sought to establish. The critical issue before the House this evening—I hope that, instead of merely attacking Liberal Democrats in Cornwall, the hon.


Gentleman will deal with this—is establishing how local communities may arrive at authorised sites to meet their obligations under current statute.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman has not replied to my question: did he or did he not support Cornwall county council's plan for the county and for his constituency?

Mr. Tyler: I neither supported nor opposed it, because I do not support or oppose any planning application. We have many responsibilities here as Members of Parliament, but we should not arrogate to ourselves the responsibilities of members of planning committees—that would be quite absurd.

Mr. Harris: Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not get involved in the merits or demerits of planning applications; but in this case I thought that the county council's actions defied all planning common sense and paid no regard to the wishes or well-being of local people. I therefore had no hesitation about deploring the council's way of trying to deal with an admittedly very difficult problem.

Mr. David Nicholson: Did I hear my hon. Friend say that the proposals in Cornwall were intended to include not just traditional gipsies but new age travellers? If so, that concerns us greatly. Secondly, will he bear in mind that this same issue has been rather more surreptitiously pursued by Liberal Democrat-controlled Somerset county council?

Mr. Harris: One of the problems that has bedevilled this whole subject is that of arriving at a reasonable definition of "gipsy". I do not accept that the huge increase in the scale of the problem has been caused by the sort of people whom I regard as genuine indigenous Romany people. Of course their population has not increased over the past 25 years by the numbers that have been given during the debate. We are talking about people who, for one reason or another—perhaps good reasons, perhaps bad reasons—have chosen to follow that way of life.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), perhaps one of the cardinal mistakes by Cornwall county council when, out of the blue, it announced their scheme for the designation of sites, was to describe them as sites for travellers. A High Court case went some way to clarifying the difference between gipsies and travellers. That case, which related to South Hams, made it quite clear that travellers were not covered by the provisions of the 1968 Act.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I do not wish to intrude too much on a Cornish debate, but clearly there are implications for everyone else. Has the hon. Gentleman ever supported the provision of caravan sites anywhere in the county of Cornwall for any travellers, or is he opposed to them all? Those of us not living in Cornwall should understand any prejudice that he may have employed in his argument.

Mr. Harris: I have always made it clear that I want the council to provides sites for indigenous local gipsies. Just as hon. Member for Cornwall, North said that there

is one in or near his constituency, there is one near my constituency, and I have no objection to it; it is perfectly reasonable.
I parted company with the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council when it tried to use powers in the 1968 Act to provide sites for new age travellers. I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North will agree that we do not have a responsibility to provide sites for people who choose on a whim to go anywhere in the country and then expect to be housed at the expense of the taxpayers or council tax payers. I do not buy that argument at all, and I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North will agree.
I should say something else about the county council. Nothing much was done for 26 years, but when the Bill came before the House and went to the other place, suddenly the Liberal Democrats on the county council acted. Their publicly stated reason for moving so quickly was to secure a 100 per cent. grant. That was the main motivation.

Mr. Tyler: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a fair Member of the House. He has not responded yet, but I hope that he will now acknowledge that the consultation began on the appropriate sites per district two years ago—before the Bill came to the House and before the reduction of grant was mooted. While I am here, because I do not want to interrupt him again—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not wish to interrupt again, but he is making an intervention, not a speech.

Mr. Harris: There were proposals by the county council some time before the Bill appeared. I am not sure whether they preceded the consultation document; my recollection is that they did not, but it was about that time. Certainly they moved very quickly to the designation of the six sites, breaking virtually every rule in the planning book to secure the 100 per cent. grant.
I was approached indirectly by Liberal Democrats who said, "For goodness' sake get the Government to call in the sites, because we do not want them." That was what happened.
The Liberal Democrats on the county council faced uproar; they were clearly in an embarrassing position. They were given some succour by the passing of the Lords amendments, and they tried to make out that the Bill would be delayed and therefore their money would be secure. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister of State made it perfectly clear that was not the case, and that, in all probability, they would not get the money they wanted.
I am sorry that I have gone on so long, but to sum up, I believe that it is absolutely essential that the Lords amendments are rejected by the House tonight. I hope they will be, I know they will be and I hope that even the Liberal Democrats will vote with the Government, despite the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury.

Sir Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that access to the House has already been mentioned twice tonight, as a result of what is happening outside the House. I know that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is quite comfortably in his place in the House when perhaps he should be outside, speaking to his friends.


Tonight, the House is under siege. There are 2,000 police who could be protecting all their communities in London, but who instead are hemmed in by a bunch of thugs who are intent on causing disruption to the proceedings of the House. All I wish to do is draw attention to that fact, and to say that the time has come when that must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Those people should be removed from outside Parliament as soon as possible.

Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman means, "Further to that point of order."

Mr. Greenway: I do not believe that it would be in the interests of the House to delay proceedings on the Bill any longer, except to say that, having twice, in the 1960s, been a police officer on the receiving end of some of the violence being meted out to Metropolitan police officers tonight, I think that the House should record its gratitude to those 2,000 officers outside, who are ensuring that that mob is not allowed into the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Stephen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Richard Tracey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unless these are new points of order, I intend to rule on the two that have—[Interruption.] Order. I shall rule on the two that have been raised. Hon. Members will know that, since I have been in the Chair, a matter was raised on a point of order in the Division. I said that I left it to the ingenuity of hon. Members to get here, and the numbers of hon. Members getting here were almost identical to those in the previous Division, which reinforces one's views that hon. Members show considerable ingenuity to get here.
At this point of time, the House has proceeded normally, and it is my intention that the House shall proceed normally. If hon. Members wish to table early-day motions, that is entirely their privilege.

Mr. George Stevenson: I should like to get away from the undoubted party politics in Cornwall to the issue before us this evening.
The fundamental question is whether the Government proposals will lead to an improvement in what is, by common consent, a matter that causes serious worry—the provision of reasonable accommodation for the needs of the gipsy population in this country. Will the Government proposals do that?
I believe, having listened to the Minister and to the debates this evening and at other times, that the Government have manifestly failed to make convincing arguments that would lead us to conclude that their proposals overall will improve the position. I intend to make three or four arguments to illustrate that.
The first argument is that, once more, the Government are trotting out their dogma—a dogma that insists that the public sector has failed and that therefore the private sector must be the way of the future.
It is interesting that, not only did the Minister contradict himself, but the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) emphasised that contradiction. As I understood the Minister, he was saying that local authority provision has worked because 46 per cent. of the gipsy population is covered by local authority sites and therefore there is no need for the continuation of the duty laid on local authorities under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. However, in the next breath, to try to justify what was a very thin argument, the Minister said that local authority provision had failed.
I say to the Minister that one cannot have it both ways. Local authority provision has either worked or it has failed. The House deserves an answer to that contradiction this evening.
My own view is that local authority provision has worked. It has not worked as well as it should, but it has worked. Having been a member of Labour-controlled Stoke-on-Trent city council, which was one of the first authorities in the country to provide a caravan site, I speak from some experience. The Government talk about 100 per cent. grants, but, as I understand it, they are capital grants. They make no reference to revenue, but during the Past 15 years under the Government local authorities have experienced savage cuts.
Therefore, it is not good enough for the Government to stand up and say that, despite the 100 per cent. grants, the provision has failed when it manifestly has not—according to the Government—without referring to the revenue consequences that fall on local authorities that have suffered severe cuts.
Secondly, the Government propose that gipsies should go on housing waiting lists. I do not know what the housing waiting list is like in other areas, but, as a direct result of Government policy, the waiting list in Stoke-on-Trent contains thousands and thousands more people than it did before the Government came to power. We have people sleeping on the streets as a result of the Government's policy.
Therefore, to suggest that gipsies need no longer worry about the removal of the duty on local authorities to provide authorised sites because they can go on the housing waiting list and be okay is pure balderdash. It is not only pure balderdash; it is an affront to gipsies. Their very tradition means that they do not want to go into houses. They want to live their traditional life. That proposal is not only impractical and does not stand up to examination, but it is an affront to the gipsy population.
My last point concerns the five-year provision in the Lords amendment. I do not know why the Government are so worried about that. I suppose that they think that it is an attempt by the other place, including many Conservative peers, to wreck the proposal. The Government, in their desire to push the measure through, must see it in that way. But that is a negative way of looking at it. There is a chance here to see whether the Government's proposals will work.
All of us understand how difficult it is to establish an authorised gipsy site in a particular area. The public react, sometimes quite strongly, to proposals for an authorised gipsy site. That is understandable. It is not always coherent or correct, but it is understandable. There are different arguments in different parts of the country. But where is the Government's evidence that things will be easier if the gipsies themselves establish the site rather


than its being done through a local authority? The Government have not put forward any arguments to justify that proposal.
I hope that we can look at the matter positively. Let us see whether the Government's proposals work. Let us see whether private applications come through. Let us see whether there is a positive effect in terms of gipsies wanting to go on housing waiting lists. The five-year proposal is an opportunity to do that. Therefore, I hope that the Lords amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Peter Luff: I shall not weary the House with a long recitation of the principles that underlie the Government's proposals, except to say that I profoundly disagree with the views expressed by Opposition Members, as do the vast majority of my constituents. Nevertheless, I want to explain why I believe that delaying the repeal of certain powers in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 may, ironically, be an attractive proposition in my constituency.
Following intensive lobbying by me and my predecessor, now Lord Walker of Worcester, I am glad to say that both councils operating in my constituency, Worcester city council and Wychavon district council, have achieved designation under the Caravan Sites Act by providing an adequate number of sites. Therefore, lf was disturbed to receive a letter from Wychavon district council stating:
Since the designation Order came into force, the Council has successfully used the new powers in a number of situations to move on unauthorised encampments. We are now very concerned that the proposed policy guidance relative to the new Act appears to make no allowance for the situation where an authority has already obtained designation … We find it very difficult to reconcile the tone of the proposed guidance with the tone of the legislation itself. On the one hand, authorities are being given new powers. On the other hand, they are being urged not to exercise them. If the new guidance is adopted as now proposed this Council will undoubtedly be in a weaker position in tackling unauthorised gypsy encampments after the new Act than before. We feel certain that this was not the Government's intention when the new legislation was announced.
I share the council's conviction that that was not the Government's intention.
My hon. Friend the Minister will understand why I am reluctant to see my constituents placed in a weaker position by the Bill than under the successful and hard-won designation that they already enjoy. I hope that he can reassure me that my council's interpretation of the guidance is mistaken and that it will be in at least an equally strong position. Otherwise, the prospect of five years of current effective protection looks quite attractive.

Ms Joan Walley: Will the proposals that the Minister has presented make it possible for someone to take responsibility for finding somewhere for travellers and gipsies in my constituency? We have a solution from the Home Office when the matter should be dealt with by the Department of the Environment. The Government's solution is no solution and will only make matters worse.
Stoke-on-Trent has already seen 33 illegal encampments this year. Local people did not want to live side by side with as many as 33 illegal sites. The council moved illegal camps from pillar to post. Travellers and gipsies moved from a children's playground to a piece of

open space, with no provision for public health or waste disposal. That resulted in enormous problems for the local community.
Stoke-on-Trent is already designated, but does not have sufficient sites for the number of people who consistently, over six years, wanted to stay in the area. It is in everybody's interest that someone should grasp the nettle, take responsibility and ensure that where a known number of travellers or gipsies are in an area, a proper camp where they can pay their way is provided. That could be done under the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
If the Government's solution would make matters better, I would welcome it, but I see nothing in their proposals that would achieve that. Stoke-on-Trent has already seen 33 illegal encampments this year. The Government's proposals would double that number next year.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister's arguments were utterly illogical. Anyone outside the House listening would consider them complete nonsense. He spoke of a natural increase in the gipsy population and in the same breath said that he would deal with the problem—as he referred Da it—by removing the requirement on local authorities to provide sites, saying that it should all be done by their private enterprise. Conservative Members also demonstrated with great clarity that they do not want caravan sites anywhere near their communities. What the Minister is doing in his silver-tongued way is presenting the worst face of intolerance of the Tory party; saying that we do not want these sites anywhere, that we do not want a travelling community, that we do not want or believe in a society that encompasses different ways of life from the ones that they understand.
The Minister should recognise that those people, the families, children and so on, who are pushed from illegal site to illegal site and are due to become criminals as a result under this disgusting piece of legislation, suffer a great deal. Their children suffer illnesses. Their infant mortality rate is higher—a large number of their babies die. They suffer educationally. They suffer a great deal of shunning and prejudice in our society. If we believe in a reasoned society, in respecting other ways of life, we should do something about it other than removing the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The man who introduced that Act, Norman Dodds, a former Member of the House, fought all his life for the rights of travelling communities. He was a very brave person. He stood up against a great deal of prejudice himself and got that piece of legislation through.
Conservative Members decry the Act as a complete failure. I am not so sure that it is. It meant that many people had somewhere safe to live and ended the horrible practice of people being driven off land and from one place to another. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) shared an experience with me. Both of us are former councillors. Both of us have been involved in the provision of sites. I was chair of the planning committee in the borough of Haringey and was asked to sign—(Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen.
I was asked, as chair of the planning committee, to sign a number of eviction orders for unauthorised campers on council land. I discovered that not only did the council not provide any authorised caravan sites, but that it had no plans to do so. I also detected that there was very


little wish to do so among certain officers of the authority, although that was not universal. It became clear to me that we had a moral obligation to fulfil sections of the Act. We were also facing, in the longer term, a legal obligation to do so under the 1984 High Court judgment, which came up some time later. Haringey provided sites—not while I was a member of the council, but shortly afterwards. Just to show its faith, it provided one of them in the car park alongside the civic centre, so nobody could say that councillors were running away from that issue.
The provision meant that there was a reduction in, if not an end to, unauthorised camping in the borough. It also meant that there was a sense of sanity. There were some possibilities of education and a higher standard of public health care for the people who were living on those sites. If we believe in living in a reasoned and decent society, we should accept the need for the provision of such sites. The Minister is sending out a very loud signal—no-go for travellers; no-go for Romanies; no-go for gipsies in our society: criminalise those who try to live that kind of life style.
The Minister should also be aware that the European Court has looked rather askance at the treatment of Lapps in other parts of Europe. Indeed, the blind prejudice that exists against travelling communities is a shame and should be treated as such. I believe that the provision of sites has been an important step forward. We should retain the Act. We should retain the 100 per cent. capital provision. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, who said that there are revenue implications that have not been met by the Department of the Environment, and that they should be. It is difficult for hon. Members to get up and say, "I support travellers", because people always come up with all sorts of reasons why they should not. I merely ask hon. Members to consider the implications of doing otherwise. Do we really want to move into the kind of society that sets the mob against those who choose to live a different life style? Do we really want to unleash the horrors of prejudice against those people? I believe that the signal from the Bill is an attempt to criminalise the people who lead that life style. There is enormous opposition to many sections of the Bill throughout society, because people recognise that the Bill is based on prejudice. This clause is the ultimate clause based on prejudice.

Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Corbyn: No, because there is very little time.
I very much hope that, limited though the Lords amendments are in this respect, we could at least understand the motive behind them and perhaps agree with them as a way of preserving the continued provision by local authorities of sites for travellers, which would at least send a signal through our society that there is real tolerance of those who wish to lead different life styles, rather than the kind of intolerance that has been demonstrated, mainly by Conservative Members, in the debate.

Dr. Tony Wright: I agree with the Government that something had to be done about the kind of problem that has affected my constituents in the past two years, which is caused not by people whom

I would term gipsies or travellers—new age or old age—but by people whom I would frankly call scavengers. They live in large caravans; they have large cars and large and expensive dogs. What they have done to the community of south Staffordshire has to be seen to be believed. I have seen it, and I believe it.
My constituents ask what they can do to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen. People have even occupied the bowling green surrounding the social welfare club belonging to a pit that the Government have just closed: having ruined the green, they burnt down the social club. Such serious problems need a serious solution, but I worry about the extent of the powers taken in this part of the Bill. I worry about their blanket nature, and about the absence of tests of nuisance.
I accept that there is a problem, which the Government had to tackle. As their lordships have said, however, the Government should think further. They have tackled half the problem —they have made it easier for local authorities to take the necessary action—but they have done nothing to provide sites for the people who are causing the problem.
Let me issue a warning. We have had a system of permissive designation: that is the root of the problem—not designation itself, but the limited, partial, fragmented take-up. It has been possible to say that the problem lies with local authorities that have not made provision for the people whom we are discussing, but from now on it will not be possible for the Government or anyone else to say that. The Government have now removed the obligation to provide sites of any kind, and have simply said that they will trust to the market and the planning system. We know that that has not worked in the past, and will not work in this instance.
The House of Lords has said, sensibly in my view, "We know that there is a problem, and we have taken action, quite properly, to make removal of unauthorised campers easier." That is good, but the House of Lords has done nothing to deal with the problem of unauthorised camping itself. The Government should take five years to think about the problem. They should approach it sensibly, or removal will be followed by endless shunting around my constituency and others like it. No longer will it be the fault of local authorities, if it is now; it will be the Government's fault.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: This has been an interesting debate, in which a variety of views have been expressed on a rather contentious subject. Some of those views have been contradictory, but important contributions have been made. It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) speak on behalf of the Opposition: as he said, we served together on the Select Committee for some years. I remind him that we spent a fair amount of time considering precisely this subject; indeed, I spent so much time on the subject of gipsies that, when we presented our report to the House, my then hon. Friend Sir Hugh Rossi asked me to lead for the Committee. I am therefore not unfamiliar with the subject, and with the problems that have arisen over many years.
The 1968 Act has failed. It has not been a complete failure, but it has failed to solve the problem of unauthorised caravans owned by Romanies. The Select Committee expressed that view strongly. Therefore, for me to come to the House and argue this point is entirely consistent with those anxieties.


9.45 pm
Having identified the problems that have arisen with the 1968 Act, it is absurd for the hon. Member for Burnley to argue for further delay. Further delay would simply add to the problem and we would be five years further down the line. Whether "five more years" is a slogan from the hon. Member for Burnley or from one of his hon. Friends, it does nothing to address the circularity of the argument. Local authorities have failed. We cannot simply turn round and say that they are likely to succeed if they have another five years. There is a structural fault in the legislation and in the approach of local authorities in general.
I agree with the hon. Member for Burnley on some of his specific points. I agree that smaller sites would be sensible because that would cause fewer problems internally among the Romanies as well as with the local community. I agree that we do not want to see sites in locations that would be bad for either the Romanies or the local community. I think that we sometimes forget that about 50 or 60 per cent of Romanies already live in houses. I repeat for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and others that the Government have no intention of forcing into houses those who have opted for this life style. That is not realistic or desirable.
What underlies the Government's attitude is fundamentally our traditional approach of diversity and choice. We have diversity because we have some sites in the public sector and some in the private sector. Some 46 per cent. are on public sector sites and 24 per cent. on private sector sites and we wish to encourage the numbers on private sector sites through the planning system. That approach is endorsed by the National Gypsy Council, which has an interest in this.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said that the Government do not want to see more sites. That is contrary to our view. We want to see more sites because we want to tackle the problem and not simply see the continuing backlog mount up. When Liberal Democrats are in opposition in local authorities they may well subscribe to the general principle that there should be more sites. However, as soon as it comes down to individual sites, they are on the other side campaigning against them. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) illustrated that extremely well.
The hon. Member for Newbury referred also to the problem of a lack of proper education for the children of such families. The point of trying to set up more permanent sites in the right locations is to increase the numbers receiving regular schooling. There is no difference of opinion between us on that. The sites are plainly not being delivered on a large enough scale under the present arrangements, and satisfactory provision is more likely in the future.
One or two Opposition Members said that because local authorities have not managed to come up with the right numbers, the Government should do something about it. The Government have used their best endeavours, but we have been advised that where local authorities are acting in good faith, even if they do not come up with the goods, we would not succeed in a mandamus order.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) that the debate is about how best to provide the sites. I was not saying that the legislation under which we are currently operating has failed

completely. It has achieved something, but it is not a long-term solution and that is perfectly obvious from the continuing number of unauthorised caravans. The hon. Gentleman may recall that when Cripps proposed 100 per cent. grants, he thought that that was needed to kick-start the provision of sites by local authorities. It does not seem to have achieved what he envisaged and we are now many years on.
The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to his local authority and to what it had done to provide a site, a point that thought was undermined by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who went on to say that 33—I think that that was the number that she gave—caravans were occupying illegal pitches. As I understand it, Stoke-on-Trent city council has provided only one site in 24 years. In January 1994, 59 caravans occupied unauthorised sites in Stoke. If the Act has worked as well as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why has Stoke-on-Trent city council, which he praises, not been able to find a solution to the problems of that region?

Mr. Rendel: The Minister has not yet told us why, if the Act is not working fully, he does not understand the need to strengthen it rather than to remove it.

Mr. Jones: I thought that I had dealt with that point when I spoke about mandamus. The Select Committee made the point on a number of occasions that the Government should be more robust with local authorities that had not come up with the goods. The difficulty is that one can try to induce and to persuade in all sorts of ways, but if local authorities use their best endeavours, honestly go about their work, but still fail, the Government cannot do a lot about it. That is why we are approaching the matter in a different way.
I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) this weekend, so I can understand the view of Wychavon council, an extremely well-run local authority. He raised the point about the inconsistency, as he saw it, between giving local authorities wider powers and, at the same time, urging Wychavon council not to use them. That is a misunderstanding. We are guiding local authorities to use those powers reasonably and not unreasonably. A local authority such as Wychavon, which has done a great deal to ensure that there are authorised sites, stands a much greater chance of enforcing the new legislation than local authorities that have neglected to provide such sites. However, as my hon. Friend is an eloquent advocate of his constituency's interests, I will consider the guidance to see whether anything further needs to be done to deal with the good authorities that have designation.

Mr. Pike: The Minister is dealing with an extremely important point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). Those authorities that have designation believe that they will lose out as a result of what is being agreed today. They have provided authorised sites and they have designation. All that that entails will go if the Bill is passed in its current form.

Mr. Jones: No one can predict exactly what will happen in the courts, but those authorities will have a much surer defence in the courts than any authority that


has done nothing about providing sites. The existence of wider powers seems to be good, not only for those authorities that are not designated, but for those that are.

Ms Walley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Lady does not mind, I shall not give way because I want to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who expressed some pride that he had dealt with this issue when a councillor in the London borough of Haringey, whereas others had ducked it.
We all admire people who stand up for their beliefs in what can be a difficult situation. The hon. Member for Burnley will remember that one of the subjects that came up again and again in the Select Committee—hardly surprising given its chairmanship—was the failure of Haringey to get authorised sites off the ground. The hon. Member for Islington, North says that Haringey achieved that shortly after he left the council. I believe that he left the council in 1983 when he joined the House in the same year as me, but the grant was approved for Haringey sites six months ago. That seems to be rather a long time.
He made a valid general point about not wanting to play to prejudice. That is not what the Government are about, although I have noticed that that is what many local activists are about, particularly those in the Liberal party. We want not to incite prejudice but to achieve something that has eluded successive Governments for a long time—to get more caravans on to authorised public or private sector sites.
That is what the Bill will achieve and I urge the House to reject the Lords amendments.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 262.

Division No. 309]
[9.54 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Booth, Hartley


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Boswell, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Amess, David
Bowis, John


Ancram, Michael
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Arbuthnot, James
Brandreth, Gyles


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bright, Sir Graham


Ashby, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Atkins, Robert
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burns, Simon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butterfill, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Beggs, Roy
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendell, Vivian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beresford, Sir Paul
Chapman, Sydney


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Churchill, Mr


Body, Sir Richard
Clappison, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)





Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Congdon, David
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Starnford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, Sir David


Eggar, Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Elletson, Harold
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Faber, David
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
Madel, Sir David


Fry, Sir Peter
Maginnis, Ken


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Gardiner, Sir George
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marland, Paul


Garnier, Edward
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mates, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McCrea, Rev William


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hague, William
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Ottaway, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Page, Richard






Paice, James
Sumberg, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Sweeney, Walter


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Sykes, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Thomason, Roy


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Richards, Rod
Thurnham, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trotter, Neville


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Viggers, Peter


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sackville, Tom
Walden, George


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whitney, Ray


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Whittingdale, John


Soames, Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Speed, Sir Keith
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Willetts, David


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wilshire, David


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stephen, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stern, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Allan
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Michael Bates




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Betts, Clive


Adams, Mrs Irene
Blair, Tony


Ainger, Nick
Blunkett, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boateng, Paul


Allen, Graham
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Alton, David
Boyes, Roland


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bradley, Keith


Anderson, Ms Janet
Bray, Dr Jeremy


(Ros'dale)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Byers, Stephen


Barnes, Harry
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell-Savours, D.N.


Beith, Rt Hon A.J.
Canavan, Dennis


Bell, Stuart
Cann, Jamie


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Chidgey, David


Bennett, Andrew F.
Chisholm, Malcolm


Benton, Joe
Church, Judith


Bermingham, Gerald
Clapham, Michael


Berry, Roger
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)





Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coffey, Ann
Hutton, John


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Connarty, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jowell, Tessa


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Keen, Alan


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dalyell, Tam
Khabra, Piara S.


Darling, Alistair
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davidson, Ian
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Denham, John
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Don
Livingstone, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Loyden, Eddie


Dowd, Jim
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Macdonald, Calum


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eastham, Ken
Maclennan, Robert


Enright, Derek
MacShane, Denis


Etherington, Bill
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maddock, Diana


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mahon, Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marek, Dr John


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martlew, Eric


Foulkes, George
McAllion, John


Fraser, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Fyfe, Maria
McCartney, Ian


Galbraith, Sam
McFall, John


Galloway, George
McKelvey, William


Gapes, Mike
McLeish, Henry


George, Bruce
McMaster, Gordon


Gerrard, Neil
McNamara, Kevin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McWilliam, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Meacher, Michael


Godsiff, Roger
Meale, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Michael, Alun


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Milburn, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Andrew


Gunnell, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hain, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike
Morgan, Rhodri


Hanson, David
Morley, Elliot


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harvey, Nick
Mudie, George


Henderson, Doug
Mullin, Chris


Heppell, John
Murphy, Paul


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hodge, Margaret
O'Neill, Martin


Hoey, Kate
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Olner, William


Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hood, Jimmy
Parry, Robert


Hoon, Geoffrey
Patchett, Terry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pendry, Tom


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pickthall, Colin


Hoyle, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pope, Greg






Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Spearing, Nigel


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Steel, Rt Hon Sri David


Prescott, John
Stevenson, George


Primarolo, Dawn
Stott, Roger


Purchase, Ken
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Quin, Ms Joyce
Straw, Jack


Radice, Giles
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Redmond, Martin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Reid, Dr John
Timms, Stephen


Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Turner, Dennis


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Tyler, Paul


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Vaz, Keith


Rogers, Allan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rooker, Jeff
Wallace, James


Rooney, Terry
Walley, Joan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Salmond, Alex
Watson, Mike


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Andrew


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Short, Clare
Winnick, David


Simpson, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Noes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. John Spellar and


Soley, Clive
Mr. John Cummings

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

New Clause

VIDEO RECORDINGS: INCREASE IN PENALTIES

Lords amendment: No. 80, after clause 82, to insert the following new clause—

("Video recordings

.—(1) The following provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (which create offences for which section 15(1) and (3) prescribe maximum fines of, in the case of sections 9 and 10, £20,000 and, in the case of other offences, level 5) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 9 (supplying videos of unclassified work), after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both,
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both."

(3) In section 10 (possessing videos of unclassified work for supply), after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—


(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both,
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both."

(4) In section 11 (supplying videos in breach of classification), after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both."

(5) In section 12 (supplying videos in places other than licensed sex shops), after subsection (4), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or
(3) above shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both."

(6) In section 14 (supplying videos with false indication as to classification), after subsection (4), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) above shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both."

(7) The amendments made by this section shall not apply to offences committed before this section comes into force.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 81, Lords amendment No. 82, Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 161, 177, 296 and 333.

Mr. Baker: Amendment No. 80 is designed to increase the penalties for offences under the Video Recordings Act 1984. At the moment, the most serious offence—supplying unclassified videos or possessing unclassified videos for supply under sections 9 and 10 respectively—can be tried only in the magistrates court, where someone who is convicted may receive a maximum penalty of a £20,000 fine. There is no imprisonment for the offences.
In the Government's view, those are serious offences and imprisonment should be available to the courts to deter those who would deliberately break the law. The amendment will therefore make those offences triable either way. That means that they will be able to be tried in the Crown court, where the maximum penalty will be two years in prison, or an unlimited fine, or both. If they are tried in the magistrates court, the amendment means that as well as the £20,000 fine, there will be the possibility of imprisonment for six months. The maximum penalties for most other offences under the Act are also increased.
Amendment No. 81 will strengthen the Video Recordings Act 1984 by narrowing the categories of video works that are exempt from classification by the British Board of Film Classification. The amendment will therefore add techniques likely to be useful in the commission of criminal offences to the list of matters that cannot be depicted to any significant extent in an exempted work. That will mean that, in future, video works containing instructions on bomb making, on violent


unarmed combat or methods of breaking into cars or houses, which have caused concern, will no longer be exempt. They will require classification by the board.
The amendment will also exclude from exempt status videos that do not illustrate criminal techniques, but which depict criminal activity that is likely to encourage the commission of criminal offences. The amendment will also change the current subjective test of whether a work is designed to stimulate or encourage certain activities that may not be shown to a new objective test of whether the video work was likely to do so.
Amendment No. 82 for the first time lays down criteria that the designated video classification authority, the British Board of Film Classification, must consider in determining whether a particular video work is suitable for classification and, if so, which category it should be placed in. The criteria are whether any harm may be caused to potential viewers, or, through their behaviour, to society, by the manner in which the work deals with criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent behaviour or incidents, horrific behaviour or incidents, or human sexual activity. The criteria mean that the BBFC must consider who is, in fact, likely to see a particular video, regardless of the classification. So, if it knows that a particular video is likely to appeal to children and be seen by them regardless of its classification, it must take them into account as potential viewers. It is very important to bear it in mind that those statutory criteria are not intended to be exhaustive and the amendment states only that the board is to consider them
among the other relevant factors".
The board will, of course, remain free to take account of other factors such as bad taste, bad language or offensiveness towards particular groups. The amendment will also make a minor change to section 7 of the Video Recordings Act 1984, which describes the broad categories of video classification certificates that the British Board of Film Classification may issue.
10.15 pm
Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 82 flows originally from a commitment made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary when the Bill was last before the House. There was then a great deal of concern about the availability of unsuitable videos. In the light of that concern, the Home Secretary undertook to introduce an amendment in another place, which would set out in statute for the first time some of the criteria that the board would be required to take into account when determining whether a video work should be granted a classification certificate and, if so, what that certificate should be. [Interruption.] That is heartening news. Lords amendment No. 82 is what emerged as a result of that undertaking. It specifies in law the main criteria that the board should take into account when classifying videos.
Hon. Members will recall that there was also debate about whether it would be possible to provide for existing works to be reclassified in the light of the new statutory criteria. That point was also raised in the debate in the other place. The possibility of some limited review of classification decisions was also referred to by the Home Affairs Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), in its recent report on video violence in young offenders, which was published in June. I should like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the careful

consideration that the Home Affairs Select Committee gave in that study, and in its earlier report, to the challenges presented by rapidly developing technology.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made plain from the beginning his sympathy with the idea that it should be possible to review the classification of works that have already been granted a certificate. However, he has been very anxious to avoid creating a system of wholesale review, which, for all sorts of practical reasons, would be unworkable. It was the Government's concern about the workability of a system which led my right hon. and learned Friend to move very cautiously in that area.
However, after consultation with the director of the board and the enforcement authorities, my right hon. and learned Friend now believes that it will be possible to meet the widely held concern that there should be some more limited system of review without at the same time creating unsurmountable problems. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend tabled amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 82, which will enable him to lay an order establishing a system for reviewing works that have been classified before the introduction of the statutory criteria. The amendment creates an order-making power because there are points of detail that will need to be resolved following discussions with those most closely concerned.

Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Lady will excuse me, I shall finish my comments and then allow her an opportunity to speak.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why?

Mr. Baker: Because time is short.
We propose a power for the BBFC to review any work classified before the introduction of the new mandatory criteria and, in the light of those criteria and other relevant considerations, to alter the classification decision if appropriate. Just as when a work is originally submitted for classification, there will be a right of appeal against the board's decision to the Video Appeals Committee.
I emphasise that nothing that is being proposed will create retrospective criminal liability. No one will be prosecuted for actions taken before the new provisions come into force and which were lawful at the time they were carried out. The proposals will mean only that if, for example, age classification of a work is changed, those who supply it unlawfully in future will be liable to criminal sanctions.

Mr. Michael: The Lords amendment results from undertakings given in this House and meets the requirements that were sensibly set out in debates both here and outside.
There would clearly be an anomaly if there were no way of reviewing classifications given before the measure came into effect. It is therefore helpful to provide a limited opportunity for such review. It would also be helpful if it were made clear that there will be consultation on the nature of the regulations under which the review will take place.

Mr. David Alton: Like other hon. Members, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the news that he has given us. I thank the Home Secretary


for honouring the commitment that he gave the House when we discussed the matter earlier this year. The Lords amendment adequately reflects most of the concerns expressed then.
The House will recall that there had been considerable debate inside and outside this place in the course of which many people raised their misgivings about the amount of violence on television and on videos and the effect that that could have on young, impressionable minds. It is not that every child who sees a violent video will go out and commit a violent offence, but all who have worked with children, especially maladjusted or disturbed children or those with special needs, know that they can often be tipped over the edge if they have a predisposition towards violence by being exposed to continuous and gratuitous violence on the screen.
The House will also recall that, at Easter, Professor Elizabeth Newsome and other distinguished psychologists, psychiatrists and paediatricians honestly admitted that they had been naive and had underestimated the effect that videos might have on the minds of impressionable young people. We have all been on a learning curve, trying to examine the effects of the video culture and of television violence on the young people of our country.

Ms Eagle: A study published earlier this year by the Policy Studies Institute and carried out by Hagell and Newburn, entitled "Young Offenders and the Media", found that young offenders rarely stay home enough to watch video violence and that their patterns of watching videos are much the same as those of children who do not offend. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that research is superior to the research that he mentioned because it involved a control group of youngsters who do not offend at the same age as those who do? Elizabeth Newsome's research did not have a control group and relied mainly on American research carried out in a very different context.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady must admit that we should not want to follow the American example here—American violence is far worse than ours. Of course, we can all call in aid research that appears to support our arguments, but the fact is that 75 per cent. of the evidence heard by the House of Lords Select Committee suggested a direct correlation between the violence continually transmitted on television and videos and real violence in the community.
It is a matter of common sense. Advertisers would not spend £1.6 billion a year trying to sell their goods and to cultivate the consumerism and materialism that have become part and parcel of life here if they did not think that it was having an effect on those who watch. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a direct link. Professor Newsome and other distinguished academics in many centres of learning have rightly come to the same conclusion.

Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not just a question of people being exposed to video violence and then going on to offend? It is also a question of the general coarsening and degrading effect that videos have on us all, young and old alike.

Mr. Alton: I agree, but the hon. Gentleman will agree, in turn, that the people whom we most need to protect are

the young and impressionable. That was what brought about the debate earlier this year when hon. Members from all political parties signed the amendment asking for that change. I welcome the fact that the Government acted upon it in the other place.
During the debates there, Lord Elton moved an amendment seeking that videos that are currently available, such as "Child's Play 3", should also be included in the general review, and that it ought to be possible to pull in videos that might have caused controversy to be examined as well as those that might come on to the market in future, such as a "Child's Play 4". That amendment was not accepted in the other place, but the Government agreed to look at the issue and I am pleased that in amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 82 they have introduced a provision to allow the British Board of Film Classification to look again at videos that might become matters of public controversy if people felt that they were having a profoundly disturbing effect on those who watched them.
I welcome what the Government have done; it has been a satisfactory outcome. I have several questions to put to the Minister which I hope he will be able to answer before the debate concludes.
The amendment contains a trigger mechanism for referring videos to the British Board of Film Classification. Whom does the Minister have in mind to do the referring? Will the BBFC accept referrals by Members of Parliament? Would the Home Office consider making referrals if it were to receive considerable numbers of representations from the public?
No one has it in mind that all 24,000 or so videos that are currently in circulation should be re-examined. We are talking about a very small number of videos, but it would be useful if the Minister could say how he envisages the trigger mechanism working.
How long will the review period be? Will it be open-ended or limited to an initial 12-month period? Can the Minister say what the timetable will be for the statutory instrument to be placed before Parliament to bring the scheme into effect? I hope that it will be as soon as possible, but it will be useful for the Minister to place it on record for the House tonight.
What publicity will be given to the review arrangements, including the BBFC initial decision to review a work and the outcome of that review? If the legislation is to help change attitudes—presumably the Home Office accepts that this is partly about changing attitudes and helping parents to be more discerning about the material that goes into their homes—the publicity surrounding the review of a particular video would be helpful.
In conclusion, I should like to thank the hon. Members who signed the original motion, particularly the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the Home Affairs Select Committee, which produced an extremely helpful report at a crucial moment in the progress of the Bill.
The issue will not end here this evening; we shall want to keep it under review, not least because hon. Members will be aware that last weekend in Norway a little five-year-old girl was killed by her playmates, who were just a little older than she was. The Norwegian authorities have withdrawn the television programme that they believe helped influence those children who carried out


that killing. That same television programme is regularly broadcast in Britain. At least I hope that we shall try to discover what reasons led to the Norwegian authorities reaching that conclusion.
I hope that we shall continue to keep under review not just video violence, but the general level of violence on television transmissions that contributes to the culture of violence in Britain.

Mr. Michael Alison: First, I briefly congratulate my hon. Friend the new junior Minister at the Home Office on the very fluent, concise and grave way in which, in the best Home Office tradition, speaking as if he had been there for many a long year, he placed before us an extremely agreeable legislative dish for our late supper this evening.
At the same time, I extend my warm appreciation and congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the important pioneering role that he has played in bringing these important amendments before the House. My right hon. and learned Friend combines, unusually, an extremely acute analytical mind and head with a very responsive and warm political heart. The interaction of that rare combination of desirable attributes often leads him to the conclusion that a balance of reasonable possibility, as distinct from an absolute and proven demonstrable actuality, is good enough cause for taking an initiative, and sometimes a risk, in legislation. That is precisely what he has done in his decision, which is so highly commendable, to bring the amendments before the House.
The Home Affairs Committee, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) chaired so powerfully and admirably, reached some markedly tentative conclusions. It is very much to the credit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that, in the light of what the Home Affairs Committee said, he has given the benefit of the doubt to common sense and common concern. I believe that that is the result of the combination of his head and his heart. He has done extremely well by the House of Commons, and by the public at large, by the way in which he has advanced the cause of regulating and controlling that dreadful disease—that dreadful affliction—of unacceptable and damaging videos. We shall all stand in his debt for many long years ahead and I commend him and my hon. Friend the Minister for what they have done in the short debate this evening.

Ms Eagle: I shall mainly refer to Lords amendment No. 82 and to Government amendment (b), which was tabled to add retrospection to the classification of videos.
I do not oppose the clause, but I wish to express scepticism about its efficacy and to express some worries that I had while I was reading it. I also wish, if possible, to gain reassurance from the Minister about aspects that are slightly unclear, and about the degree of subjectivity, which I believe damages the clause.
I recognise, as do many other people, the widespread support in the House for the toughening of the law on this issue. I prefer what is now before us to the amendment that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) tabled, which I thought was even more flawed; which threatened to censor seriously the 70 per cent. of households in this country that consist of adults only; and

with which the Home Secretary had his own difficulties, as he said when he spoke to the original clause at an earlier stage in the Bill's proceedings.

Mr. Alton: rose—

Ms Eagle: I wish to mention some other matters, but not before I have given way to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her courtesy.
The hon. Lady will recall that her right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who probably knows more about the film industry than anyone in the House, wrote a compelling article in The Daily Telegraph when my amendment was before the House, saying that he would vote for it without any hesitation. He refuted the argument that the hon. Lady has made this evening, which the industry put around at the time, that all types of videos would be caught by my amendment. The industry's only reason for making those arguments was money: people were frightened that they would lose money. The hon. Lady, of all people, surely would not be on the side of people who would be willing to exploit the innocent to make profits.

Ms Eagle: Certainly not. I always read the articles that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) writes, as I respect him as a friend and an extremely good film critic.
I am sceptical about some of the practical effects of the amendments, and I wish to mention some of them, and also some of the difficulties of interpreting the wording. I am worried about the difficult task that we are setting the British Board of Film Classification. I also believe that if it takes too draconian a role in the statutory powers that it will be given when the clause becomes law, we may find that we have gone too far the other way. There may also be some detrimental effects on the British film industry, which I shall discuss later.
I want to ensure—and to receive some reassurance about it from the Minister if possible—that the provision that we are debating will not be applied in such a way as to narrow the availability to the general public of important films that are recognised as classics. Films that have such artistic merit should escape the rules that we are laying before Parliament now. I shall be much happier if I receive some of those reassurances tonight.
We must bear in mind the origin of the clause. There was undoubtedly a moral panic, fuelled by lurid tabloid stories in the aftermath of the horrific and inexplicably brutal murder of James Bulger, and the comments of Mr. Justice Morland when he made explicit reference to the possible impact of violent videos in his comments on that case.
In the light of that controversy, the Home Secretary rightly ordered that reports be made so that he could consider the evidence and what had happened in the trial. I understand that the reports that he received did not support the theory that that appalling and horrific crime had been influenced by exposure to videos. Mr. Justice Morland subsequently clarified his comments by saying that they were not based on any evidence that he had heard in the trial of the Bulger case and that no such evidence was presented at the trial. We should remember


that there was a controversy and that the arguments put were emotive and not proved by logic when one looked at the details.
We should also remember that many of the tabloids that sensationalised the story are owned by companies that have interests in satellite television channels and other electronic media and entertainment provision which are unaffected by the video classification rules that we are debating. We should bear it in mind that it is possible to argue that the tabloids have a direct commercial interest in a tightening of the regulation of one of their competitors. Satellite television and other extra-terrestrial delivery of electronic entertainment are escaping regulation at the moment and certainly are not subject to the same stringent regulations that we are now suggesting for the video industry. We should bear that little vested interest in mind.
I am sceptical about the effectiveness of the clause because it will be useful or relevant only if we assume that there is a firm causal link between viewing habits and behaviour. I know that many in the House believe that that is the case. I have considered the evidence, but so far I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence either way. At the moment, the evidence is inconclusive.
I would support the commissioning of further research so that we can try to establish whether there is a link, but if links and causal links exist, they are complex and to simplify them to a firm link between something seen on a video and some behaviour that is then indulged in is not a proper basis on which to legislate. We should be trying to commission further work in that area.
The concern about uncontrolled exposure of young children to violent imagery is entirely understandable. It is something about which I and the whole House are concerned. But we should not jump to easy conclusions or legislate in a knee-jerk manner and assume that we have solved a complex and difficult problem. Solutions in these difficult areas of social policy and the interaction between entertainment and people's behaviour are never as easy as a firm causal link.
It is easy, especially at a time of disgust and incredulity in the aftermath of a nasty and inexplicably brutal crime, to look for an easy answer. But we owe it to our constituents and the future health of our society to remember that the answers are not simple and that we should be serious and down to earth about what some of the questions are.
There is a long history of moral panics about the detrimental effects of the media and a long tradition of shifting blame for social breakdown on to the media. It is a pastime which has a long and venerable tradition, going back to the penny dreadfuls, the music hall and the time when films first became available. Then there was rock music. In the 1950s, Elvis Presley was meant to have caused much social breakdown with his new way of dancing. Then there came horror comics and television, and now it is video games. We need a reasonable assessment of the effects that the new technologies are having, not just a knee-jerk reaction.
Blaming those media for all our social ills is a bit like blaming witchcraft for crop failures. It conveniently apportions blame and allows some action to be taken which may make us feel better, but in reality it is all but irrelevant to the real causes.
Amendment No. 82 states that the British Board of Film Classification must pay special regard
to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers".
What is meant by the phrase "potential viewers"? Presumably, it could include all members of the sighted population who in any circumstance might see a video. How do the Government interpret that phrase? Amendment No. 82 also charges the board to consider young children as potential viewers even if the products available are so rated that young children would not under normal circumstances see them. If every person in the country is a potential viewer of everything, one wonders why we bother with a rating system. How does the board intend to observe that requirement?
How will the BBFC decide
who is likely to view the video work in question if a classification … were issued"?
The board will also have to consider, when considering a classification, the harm that might be done to society. What criteria will it apply? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.
How can we view in proper perspective legislation for potential harm to society perpetrated by the availability of videos when there is no statutory duty to consider the harm done to society by, for example, persistent mass unemployment? I am not sure that we have the right priorities.
I am concerned by the five categories of subject matter in amendment No. 82—criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent behaviour or incidents, horrific behaviour or incidents and, last of all, human sexual activity. I do not want to embarrass the Minister, but why is human sexual activity included as one classification? I assume that rape would be covered by the classifications of criminal or violent acts. It seems odd that human sexual activity should be bunged together with awful behaviour.
I welcome the fact that the BBFC is to retain discretion to interpret the new statutory rules and will bring its considerable influence to bear on such matters. However, I am concerned at the subjectivity inherent in the clause, which ranges too wide. It could be argued that "King Lear" would fail to receive a classification because it depicts criminal activity and violent or horrific behaviour and that Regan, Goneril and Edmund are partly motivated by human sexual activity. Why would not "King Lear" fall within the ambit of the proposed new clause?
The Government boasted in their 1992 election manifesto that this country's video classification rules are already the toughest in western Europe. My concern is that the proposed new clauses might allow the BBFC to take an unreasonably tough line. Will there be a way of keeping the situation under review, to ensure that there is no over-reaction?
The Government amendment would permit retrospective consideration of titles already released. In another place, Lord Ferrers said that the Home Secretary had considered the matter carefully and took the view that a system involving retrospection could not be made to work. My next question to the Minister echoes one put by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. How will such retrospective consideration be triggered? Who will decide which titles should be re-examined?
I am happy that we are discussing these matters, as they are extremely important. It is also important that we do not over-react or oversimplify some of the complex


causes of difficulties and violence. If the Minister can give me some assurances on the points that I have raised, I should be happy to support the amendments.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to support what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). The Government's amendment is very essential. I think that everybody in public life knows the power of an "eye gate" before an "ear gate", and videos have an effect on young people. It is the duty of this House and of the Ministers concerned, to see that proper safeguards are in place. I do not think that we need worry about what will happen in this case. The amendment deals with something that needs to be dealt with. I am sure that the two Ministers, when they come to the end of their careers—I am not suggesting that they are about to do so—will be happy that they did this, because it will have an effect on the future men and women of our country.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Everything possible that could be said about the matter has been said, but not everybody has said it. So I am grateful for a moment of the House's time to say thank you on behalf of the Home Affairs Select Committee for the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has responded to our difficult recommendation that retrospection should be provided for in the Bill. That is the effect of Lords amendment No. 82, which gives effect to the Committee's sixth recommendation. In that regard, I give the thanks not only of the Committee and the House but I think of the whole country, and extend them to Mr. James Ferman and the BBFC, who told us, in the evidence that they gave, that this could be achieved without too much difficulty and trouble. The combination of what Mr. Ferman said and what the Committee recommended just tipped my right hon. and learned Friend over.

Mr. Howard: indicated assent.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I see that he is nodding in agreement. The amendment will receive widespread approval.
We decided to have an investigation, which lasted only one day in June, at the height of public concern about the effects of video recordings on children. We said:
Commonsense, and the existence of bodies like the BBFC, support the notion that videos can corrupt and, rather than engage in endless arguments about the precise way in which the videos damage children, it is obviously more profitable to consider what can be done to limit any such damage.
By the time that we had conducted our inquiry, the Government had already tabled their new clause to toughen up what the public considered to be the very weak state of our video classification laws.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider further the other recommendations of the Committee. We suggested that a warning notice should be given to adult purchasers or hirers of high-classification videos at the point of sale. We suggested that more work should be done on parental responsibility for the use of such videos and how the classification, if tightened, could be brought home to parents so that they could use their powers to stop this evil affecting the minds of their young children. We cast, as we went, a little straw in the wind and suggested that it might be helpful to have identity cards,

because that would make it much easier for those who have the burden of selling videos in shops to identify precisely the ages of those to whom they were providing the equipment.
I think that the Government have shown themselves to be not only a listening Government but a responsive Government and a constructive Government. On behalf of the Home Affairs Select Committee, I hope that they might go one stage further and give effect to all our recommendations.

Mr. John Whittingdale: I do not wish to detain the House for too long. But you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware that this is the first and only opportunity that we have had in this House to debate the issue. Given the amount of heat that it has generated in the past few months, I think that it is right that it be properly aired. No one could argue with the aim of the proposed amendments. Film is an extremely powerful medium and, although there is not much research at the moment, common sense suggests that young people who watch scenes of explicit violence or sex are likely to be influenced by them. That is why it is Clearly right for us to have some means of preventing children from seeing films that deal with subjects that they are not yet sufficiently mature to understand. That is why the BBFC was set up by the film industry in 1912.
Much criticism has been levelled at the BBFC in recent months, but I join my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) in paying tribute to its work and to its director, James Ferman. This country has a tougher regime of censorship of films and videos than any other country in Europe. I well remember attending a lecture by Michael Winner when I was a student, in which he complained bitterly about the cuts that he had been forced to implement in his latest film "Deathwish 2". Having visited the BBFC with one or two of my hon. Friends and seen examples of the scenes that it required to be cut, I can say that I believe that the BBFC was quite right to insist on their removal. It is interesting to note that in other countries they were shown.
Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, the BBFC is required to issue a certificate to any video before it can be sold or offered for rental. As a result, many videos have already been banned. After the passing of the Act, not only were so-called video nasties such as "Driller Killer" and "I Spit On Your Grave" outlawed; the BBFC also refused to issue certificates for films such as "Straw Dogs" and "The Exorcist" because of the risk of their being seen by children. Even now, the BBFC is debating whether to authorise the video release of "Reservoir Dogs", a film which has been so successful that two years after its first release it is still showing in commercial cinemas. Incidentally, I hope that the BBFC will decide to grant "Reservoir Dogs" a certificate. It is undeniably a violent film, but it is also a very powerful film which deserves to be seen by adult audiences.
I can understand the view of those who feel that more needs to be done, and the paper by Professor Newson is extremely worrying. I am therefore happy to support the provisions in the amendments that will increase the penalties for those breaking the Video Recordings Act, and tighten the exemptions from it. I am anxious, however, that the new criteria that the Bill sets out for the BBFC to use in judging the suitability of a video for


release, and the additional powers of retrospective review, should not lead to more than a tiny number of films being deemed unsuitable.
The British Film Institute has already warned that it believes that the amendment could mean that many internationally acclaimed films that gain a cinema release with an "18" certificate will not be certifiable for video release. I do not believe that films such as "The Godfather", "Raging Bull" and "Schindler's List", which have "15" or "18" certificates, will be affected—that would clearly be ludicrous—but I also hope that other films made specifically for adult audiences are not caught by the provision. Horror films such as "The Silence of the Lambs", "Nightmare on Elm Street" and Clive Barker's "Hellraiser" clearly should not be seen by children, but they are good films, and it would be entirely wrong to deprive the 70 per cent. of households that do not contain children of the chance of seeing them on video.
Finally, I want to say a brief word about "Child's Play 3"—a film which has received considerable media attention, most of it wholly uninformed. It was perhaps understandable that, in the wake of the murder of Jamie Bulger, attempts should be made to explain the horror of that tragedy. It is possible that exposure of the two boys responsible to violent videos played a part; but, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has pointed out, the police reports did not support the theory that the crime had been influenced by exposure either to that video or to videos in general.
Unlike most people who have commented on the subject, I have seen "Child's Play 3". It was not a particularly enjoyable experience; it is not a very good film, but nor is it a particularly remarkable film. The scenes of violence in it are mild in comparison with those in hundreds of other films that are available today on the shelves in video shops. If the intention is to ban films such as that, it will also be necessary to ban hundreds of other films. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want.
The need to control young people's access to violent films is undeniable and that is why I strongly support the Video Recordings Act 1984 and the work of the BBFC. Used judiciously, I believe that the extra powers in the Bill could help to increase still further the protection available to children. However, at the end of the day, the responsibility for controlling our children's viewing habits must lie with their parents. There is no substitute for that. Just like alcohol and cigarettes, some videos will not be suitable for children. The way to stop children seeing them is not to ban them but for parents to exercise proper control.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on his fluency, particularly since he has recently given up vows that would have been more appropriate for a Trappist monk. Before the debate concludes, I invite him to address the issue of the effective ban that will be imposed by amendment No 81 on all videos that depict or encourage criminal activity. My hon. Friend's example of bomb making was a good one.
Can my hon. Friend explain why the amendment was produced only in time for the Lords and was not the subject of a separate Bill? Does he agree that there have been numerous representations from the police and other

authorities about a ban on the distribution of such material? Is not it strange that this should be tabled in the House of Lords rather than in this House, which would have given us a decent opportunity to debate the issue? Are not we in danger of falling into the trap—the Broadcasting Act 1990 was a classic example—of technology superseding the legislation passed by the House?
Instead of an amendment being tacked on to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, would not it have been more appropriate, particularly if there have been many representations from the police, for a separate Bill so as to provide the House with a proper opportunity to discuss the technology and the implications of a serious and important ban and an extension of criminal penalties into the video lending industry?

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am afraid that I shall not reply now to all the points that have been raised in this very good debate. I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). I must say to people who feel as she does that there is no doubt in my mind—this has been echoed in many of the speeches—that something needs to be done.
The BBFC is based in the film industry. It has been classifying films for years. It has experience and it knows how to do it. We are talking about reclassification and I think that the hon. Lady failed to appreciate that in what she had to say. I shall write to her about the other points that she raised.
I must tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), even if he is not prepared to attend to me now, that a great deal of consultation with the industry will take place before we can go ahead. If the hon. Gentleman has any points to add, they will be listened to.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) made a number of detailed points and I will write to him as soon as I can. I welcome the support that has been given from both sides for what we propose.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with special entry.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 124, after clause 133, to insert the following new clause—Amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in Scotland—
. In section 80(6) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (which defines "homosexual act" for the purposes of section 80), after "gross indecency" there is inserted "or shameless indecency".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Maclean.]

11 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 133 to 140, 164, 166, 174, 183 to 185, 273, 312, 324, 327, 334, 337 and 338.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I rise to raise a point of clarification. The amendment appears to go beyond what was agreed in this place. I should be grateful for clarification from the Minister. The decriminalisation that was going to take place appears to


have been muddled. Will the Minister give hon. Members an undertaking that the promises that were given by the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), to decriminalise these acts are still the position of the Government?
Will the Minister clarify the position of the Merchant Navy, which is governed by civilian employment law, and confirm that there is no question of criminality being extended to it or to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary?
Will the Minister confirm that these disciplinary offences will continue to be treated as such, that there is no suggestion of criminalisation and that the Government still favour decriminalisation?

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) for raising these matters and I am happy to give the assurances that she sought about the effect of the words that my right. hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) used in another debate.
I am anxious to give her the assurances that she sought about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Merchant Navy and I should be happy to have a further, more detailed conversation with her. If she would care to call on us, we should be happy to arrange it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to refer you to a statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday at Question Time—

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery): In answer to?

Mr. Bell: In answer to a question put to him. He said:
I am as concerned as any Member in the House
about the highest standards in public life. He agreed that corruption was not something of which he would approve, in any circumstances. He further said:
Our public servants and public institutions are acknowledged to be among the best in the world. In order to maintain that reputation in administration and in politics, wrongdoing will have to be rooted out wherever it is, and I shall seek to ensure that it is."—[Official Report, 18 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 142.]
A statement will appear in The Guardian tomorrow, which I should draw to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It says:
A top Westminster lobbying company were paid
thousands of pounds
to give to two high flying Conservative MPs for asking Parliamentary Questions at £2,000 a time on behalf of Harrods during the height of the Lonrho and House of Fraser controversy.
The two Ministers referred to in the article are the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), the Minister now responsible for trade and industry, and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who is a junior Northern Ireland Minister. They were both named in the article
as recipients of payments passed to Ian Greer Associates, by Mohammed Al-Fayed, the owner of Harrods, on top of a £50,000 fee for a Parliamentary lobbying campaign.
Given the Prime Minister's statement that he would seek to ensure the highest standards of public probity, have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received any sign that he will make a statement to the House tonight or tomorrow?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman is alleging privilege, but, if he is, he knows the procedures of the House— he must write to Madam Speaker.

Mr. Bell: I am asking whether you have received any indication that the Prime Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not received any sign from any hon. Member.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If this is a new and different point of order, I shall take it, but it had better be different. Is it a different point?

Mr. Garnier: Indeed so, Sir. Is it in order for a Member of the House to conspire with members of the press to introduce defamatory material under the cloak of privilege in order that tomorrow's newspaper may carry a report of that privileged occasion? Is it in order for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to shoot the fox of the Liberal party, when the whole Liberal Front Bench, such as it is, has stayed up all night to make the same fatuous point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had assumed that hon. Members had come to debate the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ensure that the matter of Ministers taking bribes at £2,000 a time is not shoved upstairs to some secret Committee but is dealt with by the House? The Government are riddled with corruption—they are past their sell-by date and it is time that they went to the people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Any further points of order had better be new ones.

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order? There seems to be some hesitation on the hon. and learned Gentleman's part.

Mr. Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that earlier this evening I and some hon. Friends tabled a motion relating to the probity of hon. Members and of the Government in the conduct of public business. The motion asks for an inquiry—not involving hon. Members—to examine the matter. Is there any way in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can assist us in achieving that end?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that I have spent most of this evening in the Chair. I have no idea what early-day motions have been tabled; nor do I wish to know their contents at this point.
Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Conway.]

To be further considered tomorrow.

BROADCASTING

Ordered,
That Sir Nicholas Bonsor be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Conway.]

PETITIONS

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I present a petition on behalf of hundreds of my constituents who oppose many of the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. I share that opposition. It reads as follows:
To the House of Commons
The Petition of residents of York and neighbouring Parliamentary constituencies declares that the Criminal Justice Bill threatens to infringe basic civil liberties, which ordinary democratic citizens have fought for throughout history, and that the bill will remove the right to legitimate peaceful protest. It will give the police service unrestrained powers of arrest, without the need for any offence to have actually taken place, and it will deny the citizens' right to silence.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons do not allow the Criminal Justice Bill to be enacted.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, et cetera.
The petition is signed by my constituent, Mr. Dhara Thompson, and by 815 other residents of my constituency and neighbouring constituencies in North Yorkshire.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now that the House is silent and now that the occupant of the Chair has acquiesced in the Government Whip's application that consideration of the Lords amendments be adjourned in the middle of a series of points of order involving grave allegations, can you advise me whether it is right that the occupant of the Chair should acquiesce—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not raising the point of order on which I have already ruled.

Mr. Bermingham: No. I hope that you will accept that I say this with courtesy, but I am challenging the way in which business proceeded this evening. Some other hon. Members might have had something to say and perhaps sought to catch your eye, but the Government adjourned the proceedings, thus, in effect, ensuring that the purpose of raising the points of order was lost. Is it in accordance with the rules of the House that those of us who believe in the democratic process should have our remarks curtailed by a motion to adjourn the proceedings, leaving only the Adjournment debate, and thus denying us the opportunity to continue to debate the serious matters that were raised earlier?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the greatest respect, we have not had the Adjournment debate yet. We have debated the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, dealt

with motion No. 2 on the Order Paper and heard one of two petitions. We have not reached the Adjournment debate yet.

Mr. Bermingham: I did not say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is not the point that I am making.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman making his point now?

Mr. Bermingham: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not mean to denigrate in any way the business yet to come, but I am saying that the serious business of the House has been adjourned, and that caused a stoppage of the points of order on matters raised by hon. Members earlier. When such a situation arises, is it right that Government Whips should seek to adjourn the House, and thus curtail debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that I can advise the hon. Gentleman is that, as of this moment, no Adjournment of the House has been sought. I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been, but the only motion moved by the Government Whip was that we should adjourn further consideration of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, not that we should adjourn the House. Indeed, had the hon. Gentleman wished to raise a new point of order he could have caught my eye, but I never saw him move. I looked round the Chamber, nobody else moved, and I have now ruled.

Tingewick Bypass

Mr. George Walden: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Tingewick action group. Its purpose is to press for the speedy building of a bypass for the village of Tingewick. To give some idea of the problem, I tell the House that the village lies on a major road, and that the width of the high street dwindles at one point to only 4.8 m. Therefore, my petitioners would like the bypass to be included in the Department of Transport transport policies and programme, and built. I therefore present the petition, which bears about 700 names from a village comprising a mere 359 dwellings.

To lie upon the Table.

Raymond Gilmour

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise this important matter on the Adjournment tonight. This is not a matter of party politics. It is, quite simply, a question of justice.
The case of my constituent, Raymond Gilmour, presents the real and strong possibility—I would assert, the probability—that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. More than that, it raises questions that strike at the very heart of our Scottish legal system.
Of course, no system of criminal law can ever be perfect. In any system, there will be always be the chance of wrongful conviction. The health of any system of justice, therefore, must be judged on how it rights those wrongs. Against that measure, the Gilmour case places the credibility of the Scots legal system, as it stands, at some risk.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that my endeavours tonight are deeply considered, serious and sincere. I have provided him with a copy of my speech in advance of the debate, because I genuinely want his response to be well informed and well considered. I have also supplied him with a copy of a video recording of the recent "Trial and Error" programme on Gilmour's case.
On 4 November 1981, Johnstone schoolgirl Pamela Hastie was assaulted, raped and murdered in Rannoch woods in my home town of Johnstone. All murders are terrible, but this one was especially terrible. Pamela was young, bright and attractive. She was full of life, and full of hope. She had just been made a school prefect. She was proud of that, and her parents—good, honest, decent people, whom I know—were proud of her. She had everything to live for, and everything to look forward to.
Try to imagine the family's horror—only those who have lived through such an ordeal really can imagine it—when they learned not only that their daughter was dead, but how she had died in such evil circumstances. Their lives were shattered, and they remain shattered. I want to see justice every bit as much for the Hasties as I do for Gilmour. What they lost that day can never be replaced, but at least they deserve to know the truth.
Over the years since Gilmour's conviction, a number of people have sought to get at that truth. Although his claims of innocence had always been stoically supported by his family and his local minister, the Rev. Hamish MacColl, the campaign to have his case reconsidered was making little headway for some years. Then a Paisley solicitor, Gordon Ritchie, became interested, and he has since spent countless hundreds of hours doing unpaid and diligent research. He is a credit to the Scottish legal profession.
I also pay tribute to the objective research and reporting of journalists, especially Severin Carrell of The Scotsman, who has done much, much more than journalism demanded. Stephen Wilkie of the Daily Record has also shown a continued interest in the campaign, as have journalists from the Paisley Daily Express, Renfrew and Erskine Gazette, Evening Times and The Guardian. I am also grateful for the continued support that I have received

from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), both of whom are present.
When the Secretary of State rejected Gilmour's application for the prerogative of mercy on 18 April, it was feared that it would prove difficult to keep the case in the public eye. However, the case was worrying enough to excite the attention of the Just Television company, which makes the "Trial and Error" programme for Channel 4. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House will have personal experience of the team who, until 1992, produced "Rough Justice" for the BBC.
The team brought forward evidence that re-established Gilmour's alibi on the day in question, suggesting that confusion in the evidence of a 16-year-old witness may have mistakenly placed him near the scene of the crime. More critically, they highlighted evidence from the eminent forensic pathologist, Dr. Iain West, that the victim could not have been hit in the way in which Gilmour is alleged to have claimed in his admissions. Indeed, it is Dr. West's view that the victim was not hit at all in that way.
Gilmour became a police suspect shortly after Pamela Hastie's body was found. He lived in the area, frequented Rannoch woods and had a previous conviction for indecent exposure. When he was questioned by the police, he readily admitted exposing himself on other occasions in the same vicinity. It is not in dispute that Gilmour committed such crimes, and it seems that he was, in some ways, an inadequate youth.
On 9 November 1981, Gilmour made the first of his two alleged admissions. He withdrew it almost immediately and claimed that he had made it only to appease his interrogators. He was interviewed by the police officer heading the investigation, Detective Superintendent James Brown, who concluded that Gilmour had no special knowledge of the murder, and was merely offering a second-hand account of what he had read in newspapers or heard from local gossip. Brown ruled him out as a suspect, and to this day, Brown believes that he was correct to do so.
I well remember the intense local feeling at the time. The police were under great pressure from the press and the public to get a conviction. Brown was taken off the inquiry, and was replaced by Detective Superintendent Charlie Craig—perhaps best described as a determined, if colourful and unorthodox, police officer—who resolved to get his man. But did he get the right man? That remains the question. Will the Minister detail the reasons why Brown was removed from the murder investigation? Why did Strathclyde police remove that detective superintendent from an inquiry that he had been conducting for months?
On 9 February 1982, three months after his first alleged and withdrawn confession, Gilmour was being held at Longriggend remand centre on charges of indecent exposure to which I referred earlier. He was due to appear in Paisley sheriff court that day. The normal practice was for the prison bus to take prisoners to court. Instead, that day, two senior officers of the serious crime squad arrived to give him a special escort in a police car.
That journey should have taken 40 minutes. It took around three hours. During it, Gilmour is alleged to have made his second confession. He claims it was made involuntarily, under threat and duress. Why on earth did


two such senior officers attend to escort a prisoner to the court where he was due to appear on charges in which they had no involvement? Why did the journey take so long? How, in those highly unusual circumstances, could Gilmour possibly have invoked his right to have a solicitor present?
More troubling still is the fact—and it is a fact—that those admissions bear little relationship to the truth of events at various salient points. Gilmour claimed, for instance, that he had committed the murder and left the body at a point very different from that where it was found. He was unable to provide specific details of the clothing of the victim. More specifically, and more significantly, he was totally mistaken about how the victim was murdered, claiming that he had hit her over the head with the branch of a tree and then strangled her with her school tie or the strap of her bag. She was, in fact, strangled with sisal string.
During his first alleged confession—which he later withdrew—Gilmour sketched a labelled map of the murder locus. There is now forensic suspicion that some words on that map may have been written under more than one hand. In any case, there are inconsistencies in the accuracy of the map, in terms both of location and of the simple shape of the path.
Most critically of all, "Trial and Error" discovered evidence that, to my mind, discredits any remaining reliability one might give to Gilmour's confessions. The victim had been attacked with a knife or similar object in such a way that classic defensive wounds resulted.
This fact—a fact so central and salient to the case—it is now established, was not known to the police investigating the murder, to the defending solicitor at the time, to the protecting and defending advocate, to the judge or to the jury. How could the worth of the case against Gilmour have been properly or comprehensively judged with the omission of a fact which was at the very centre of this terrible crime?
My understanding is that the advocate-depute, although responsible for the prosecution case, has a primary duty to make all the evidence available to the court in the public interest. It seems that at least one essential piece of evidence was not made known to the court. Why was it omitted? Was the evidence about the use of a knife known to the Advocate-Depute? If it was, why was it not led in evidence? If it was not, why not?
In light of this, I wish to formally request that the Minister places in the House of Commons Library a full transcript of the shorthand notes taken at the trial. I believe that the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates has now agreed to appoint leading and junior counsel to act on Gilmour's case. That news is extremely welcome. The availability of the trial transcripts is now more necessary than ever.
As I have said, my constituent has already submitted a petition to the Secretary of State, but that was before this latest evidence came to light. At the time of his decision, the Secretary of State provided me with detailed reasons for his decision. I do not wish, and do not have the time, to question all of them, but I must question his statement on the final page of his letter to me about Gilmour's petitions, in which he states that they

do not cast reasonable suspicion on any other person as regards the murder.
Will the Minister confirm that it is not the responsibility of Gilmour, or anyone acting on his behalf, to prove the guilt of another in order to establish his own innocence?
I must also ask why the Minister of State, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, withdrew from consideration of the case after being involved for many months. He told me that he had recollections about an earlier involvement in the prosecution of the case which made that withdrawal proper and necessary. Exactly what did he recollect? Why did these recollections cause him to withdraw?
I was delighted to receive on Monday what I regard as a helpful and hopeful letter from the Secretary of State in which he said:
I note your continuing concern about your constituent's conviction and will of course give careful consideration to any further points which might be submitted on his behalf in the light of that programme, 'Trial & Error". I am ready to consider a further petition supported by relevant documentation, particularly with regard to any new statements on the part of witnesses or forensic experts.
Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State means what he says? Will he confirm that his right hon. Friend will now consider a petition based on new statements, which might include fresh information on evidence which was technically available at the time of the trial, even though it was not led at the trial or made known to the judge, jury, defence or police? Better still, will he now consider using his powers under section 263 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to refer the case to the High Court?
The wealth of new evidence now available cries out for a reappraisal of this tragic case. It is now an open secret that the Gilmour case is discrediting the Scottish system of justice, a system on which we have prided ourselves for so long. Surely, a truly healthy system must confront the possibility of error: in this case, an error which may have locked an innocent man behind bars for more than 12 years.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) has very kindly allowed me the opportunity of a moment or two to contribute to this debate. I do not need to delay the House for long, because the comprehensive and responsible way in which he presented his case this evening was, to an objective listener, extremely persuasive indeed.
My qualification for adding my support to what the hon. Gentleman has said arises first from the fact that I have read all the papers relating to the trial that are publicly available. I have not read the transcript, because it has not yet been made available. I have also had the advantage—if that is the right word—of defending on a number of occasions in murder trials in Scotland, on one famous occasion with the Minister as my junior. In addition, I spent some time in the Crown Office as an advocate-depute, and I have prosecuted in a number of murder trials.
Using this experience and the judgment that I hope I have reasonably formed as a result, I am left in considerable doubt as to the legitimacy of the conviction in this case. I am concerned, first, by the apparent inconsistency between the confession and other circumstances of the case. If special knowledge, so-called,


is to be relied upon, there is certainly some scope for inconsistency; but a number of the inconsistencies seem to me so major as to raise a large amount of doubt.
I am also much concerned about the way in which this man was taken from Longriggend to what was supposed to be a routine court appearance, and about the fact that a journey of 40 minutes apparently took about three hours. I am particularly anxious about the fact that it now appears that there is evidence that, as part of the attack, a knife may have been used, and that that evidence formed no part of the consideration of the High Court when the matter was tried.
Under our system of law in Scotland, no man or woman has to prove his or her innocence. There has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt. Having given the matter the best consideration that I can, I believe that there is a substantial doubt in this case. That is why I have sought to lend such assistance as I can to what I regard as the responsible and assiduous efforts that the hon. Member has made on behalf of his constituent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) warmly on his success in securing this Adjournment debate, and on his obvious commitment to the cause of justice and to the interests of his constituent. I also congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I vividly remember the case in which I was his junior counsel. It seems only yesterday, but it was a long time ago.
It is the sign of a civilised society to be constantly vigilant to ensure that our system of criminal justice does not tolerate miscarriages of justice, and complacency in such matters is never acceptable. The successful functioning of our criminal justice system does, of course, depend on an intricate balance being maintained between the need to ensure fairness for an accused person and at the same time to protect the public from crime.
I have seen and studied the video recording, which the hon. Gentleman kindly lent me yesterday, of the recent television programme, and I have listened to the hon. Member's concerns about his constituent's case with great attention.
I should make it clear to the House from the outset that the Secretary of State will be ready to consider any further representations which may be submitted on Mr. Gilmour's behalf. Indeed, I understand that a petition is at present being prepared. The House will understand, however, that, until such a petition has been considered, neither I nor my right hon. Friend is in a position to comment on any new matters which may have been raised by the television programme, or to review the decision taken in April.
It is important to remind the House, first, why the Secretary of State cannot usually intervene in a case on the basis of evidence which has already been before the courts. Constitutionally, it is for the courts to determine questions of innocence or guilt. Accordingly, the Secretary of State should not seek to intervene in their decisions or to second-guess the verdict of a jury purely on the basis of information already considered by the courts.
This is because the Secretary of State's opinion of a case can be based only on consideration of relevant papers, including reports of investigations, whereas the jury at the original trial will have been able to hear the evidence and assess the performance and demeanour of witnesses at first hand. It follows that the Secretary of State can normally consider the exercise of his power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal only when compelling new information is presented to him which was not before the court or could not reasonably have been made available at the trial.
The purpose of a referral to the Appeal Court is to enable some fresh issue to be considered by the court which the Secretary of State is satisfied it can properly and usefully consider. On that basis, any new petition which may be presented to the Secretary of State for Mr. Gilmour should seek to present new evidence or fresh considerations of substance; it should not seek simply to re-argue matters which are already before the court of trial.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues, many of which were raised in the recent television programme. If Mr. Gilmour's representatives consider that they are new issues of substance, they will no doubt raise them in the further petition, and my right hon. Friend will consider them carefully.
At this stage, however, I should note that the post mortem report, which made reference to the cuts on the victim's hands, and the photographs taken at the post mortem showing cuts on the left hand, were productions at the trial. Both pathologists who conducted the post mortem also gave evidence. If, none the less, the cuts on the victim's fingers are now considered to be significant, the matter can be raised in any further petition to the Secretary of State.
As regards the hon. Gentleman's request for a transcript of the shorthand notes taken at the trial, I have made inquiries, and I understand that the shorthand notes were transcribed, but it has not been possible to locate the transcript. I would otherwise have been willing to meet the request to have the transcript placed in the Library. I intend, however, to pursue the matter further with the Justiciary Office, but the judge's charge to the jury was transcribed for the appeal and is available, as is the opinion of the appeal court and the report thereon.

Mr. McMaster: Will the Minister confirm that the powers of the Secretary of State under section 263 are extensive, and if the Secretary of State chose to do so, he could refer the case to the High Court? Let us leave that aside for the moment and get to the nub of the case.
Will the Minister, to be absolutely crystal clear, give a cast-iron guarantee that the evidence which was shown in "Trial and Error"—the evidence to which I refer primarily—will be permissible as part of a new petition? We have to have that absolutely clarified, because the Minister has seen the video and knows that the evidence will corroborate it. I do not want to make any more interventions, so let me raise one more point with the Minister. I seek his assurance that he will instruct a genuine search for the transcript.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, the Secretary of State does have substantial powers, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, if there are grounds within the petition. As I


mentioned to the hon. Gentleman, the grounds are either fresh evidence or fresh issues of substance, and it is not appropriate for me to give a legal interpretation.
The appropriate course is for the facts to be presented in the petition which the lawyers advising the convicted person believes are of relevance as regards the matter as being either fresh evidence or new issues of substance.
I wish to mention particularly the reason why Detective Superintendent James Brown was removed from the murder investigation. That decision was an operational matter for the Strathclyde chief constable, but I understand that it is not unusual police practice to invite a senior investigating officer unconnected with the original investigation to review the case where a murder inquiry has failed to make significant progress. The advantage of having a fresh mind in charge in such circumstances can readily be appreciated, and it would, in my view, be unjustified to seek to draw sinister inferences.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State withdrew from consideration of the case. My noble and learned Friend wrote to the hon. Member on 30 March this year explaining that, in his previous capacity as Solicitor-General, he had been aware of the Gilmour case, but had not had a substantial involvement. None the less, priorities dictated withdrawal from consideration of the petition submitted on Mr. Gilmour's behalf, as in his view complete detachment was necessary. I am sure that the House will agree that my noble and learned Friend's decision to withdraw was appropriate and honourable. I should also remind the House that decisions about such cases are taken by the Secretary of State.
I was asked to give my view to the Secretary of State on the evidence then available, and the Secretary of State took the final decision at that stage. The petitions submitted to him last year on Mr. Gilmour's behalf were the subject of detailed consideration and investigation.
Those petitions focused essentially on two of the key issues at Mr. Gilmour's trial. The first was whether his confession statements were made voluntarily or whether they were extracted from him by unfair police questioning, violence or threats of violence. The second key issue was whether there was sufficient correlation between the contents of his statements and the evidence of what was found in the wood as to constitute special knowledge on Mr. Gilmour's part which the murderer would have had.
The trial judge instructed the jury in his charge that, unless its members were satisfied both that the statements were fairly obtained by the police and that such correlation and special knowledge existed, there was otherwise insufficient evidence to convict Mr. Gilmour. The trial judge also advised the jury that the forensic evidence could not be regarded as a source of corroboration.
In convicting Mr. Gilmour, a majority of the jury clearly concluded that the confession statements had been fairly obtained by the police, and that they revealed sufficient special knowledge to provide corroboration. All the police officers who witnessed the confessions gave evidence in court, and were thus able to be cross-examined on whether undue pressure had been applied in the relevant interviews.
The main ground of Mr. Gilmour's appeal was that there was not sufficient evidence in law to corroborate the statements concerning the admissions that he had committed the offences. The Court of Appeal concluded that, where statements contained points of identity and points of discrepancy with facts found by the police, it was for the jury to decide whether they could accept the points of identity. In this case, the jury had accepted those points, and the Court of Appeal held that they had been sufficient in law.
The petitions submitted to the Secretary of State last year returned to the matter of discrepancies between the confession statements and what the police had found in the woods. Although the petitions raised matters that either were or could have been raised at the trial, interviews were conducted with witnesses who had provided statements to the petitioner's legal representatives.
As the police evidence was crucial in the case, six of the seven police officers involved in the original investigation were also interviewed last year, the seventh officer having died in the intervening period. The interviews were conducted by the regional procurator fiscal at Paisley, and by senior officers of Strathclyde police.
I can confirm to the House that the police statements did not reveal any indication of malpractice. Indeed, the police officers in question emphatically denied any unfair treatment on their part, or any physical or verbal abuse of Mr. Gilmour in the course of the murder inquiries.

Mr. McMaster: Is that surprising?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman asks whether that is surprising.
One of the great virtues of the Scottish legal system is that the regional procurator fiscal is entirely independent of the police and, as I mentioned, the interviews were conducted by the regional procurator fiscal and by senior officers of the Strathclyde police.
The petitions also alleged that a lorry driver had been seen acting in an unusual and suspicious manner on the day of the murder, and had tried to pick up a young girl in his lorry within half a mile of the locus. The lorry driver who was apparently the subject of those allegations was traced and interviewed on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Witnesses relevant to those allegations were also interviewed, but no grounds were revealed to regard the lorry driver as a suspect in relation to the murder. Several other witness statements submitted on Mr. Gilmour's behalf were also investigated and precognitions taken of the persons concerned. Those statements did not raise any issues of material significance.
The matter was investigated because it had been raised on Mr. Gilmour's petitions, but I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that it is not the responsibility of Mr. Gilmour or his representative to prove the guilt of another person in order to establish his own innocence.
The very thorough investigation that was conducted on behalf of the Secretary of State did not identify any evidence of police malpractice; nor did it suggest an alternative suspect for the murder of Pamela Hastie.


Careful consideration of the petitions did not identify any grounds for concern about the case that were not before the jury at the original trial. It was therefore concluded that the representations last year did not reveal such new evidence or fresh considerations of substance as to indicate that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
As to the claim made in the recent television programme, if Mr. Gilmour's representatives consider that the programme identified new evidence or fresh considerations of substance, they should arrange to include all such matters in the forthcoming petition to the

Secretary of State, supported as appropriate by statements from witnesses or forensic experts. We shall then arrange for those matters to receive close examination.
In conclusion, I repeat my initial statement, that we stand ready to consider further representations on the case. I assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that any new submission made on Mr. Gilmour's behalf will be carefully considered, and further investigations instructed if appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve midnight.